



4* ♦CvtffeN ^ 










"W 
#. ^ 

^ 






Pi' *u* •^H^°. **£ 'Mam*' 












**/* 



^^c 






^* ^ % '-SaB^ * v "^ ^ 











^ * *> * O ' ^> 

v * 





















ij-*.-. «? ^ 





^0* 



"o. **ttv-' o-' \/*^* ,^' 






















•bt* 



<s 




r. ^> 








7s* ^0 




*bV 







A V .v.. 









The History of Episcopacy: 



PRELATIC AND MODERATE. 



BY REV. JAMES A. DAVIS, D. D., 



WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY THE 



RT. REV. B. T. TANNER, D. D„ LL. D. 



A. M. K. Church Sunday School Union, 
NASHVIIJ y F y> TKNN. 

1902. 



■31 3 



TKF LIBRARY OF 
CONGRESS, 

Two COWKS RfcCHlVEt) 

NOV, 13 190? 

CLASS GL/XXc No. 
COPY B 



Entered, according to 

Act of Congress, in the year 

1902. 



► « - • • « 
, » • • • 



LC Control Number 




tmp96 027662 



DEDICATORY. 



To the African Methodist Episcopal Ministry, 

this work 

is most affectionately dedicated. 



PREFACE. 



In the winter of 1894, while visiting the South 
Carolina Conference at Charleston, I had the pleas- 
ure of listening to an address from the Rector of the 
Colored Episcopal Church. It was this address which 
gave the inspiration for the ensuing pages. 

The Rector, after dwelling pleasingly upon the edu- 
cational and missionary enterprises of the ' ' African 
Methodist Societies' ' (as he called them), and what 
they had done for the uplift of the race in gen- 
eral, closed by expressing the hope that some day our 
"Societies," which had wrought so mightily in the 
past, would become a Church with & full-fledged 
ministry. Intentionally or unintentionally, the 
speaker had struck a blow at the validity of the 
African Methodist Episcopal ministry, and our soul 
was on fire to answer. Restrained by the Bishop's 
gavel, we yielded to the courtesy of the hour, but the 
episode created in me a resolve to probe to the very 
bottom, the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. 
In trying to do this, very many resources of informa- 
tion have been drawn upon, and a large number of 
authorities consulted. 

After investigating the subject to my own satisfac- 
tion, I felt it my duty to put the results of my inves- 
tigation into book-form, so that our younger minis- 

(iv) 



PREFACE. 



ters and people might have ready at their command, a 
concise, consecutive and complete statement and dis- 
cussion of the doctrine of "Apostolic Succession," 
and thereby be always ready to give a reasonable an- 
swer for the hope they have as members of the Afri- 
can Methodist Episcopal Church. I may be per- 
mitted to say that the w 7 ork has been done during 
such fragments of time as could be spared from the 
ministerial duties incident to large pastorates, and 
this will, I trust, account for any unevenness of style 
which may appear. I have not written in any 
polemic spirit, nor have I written with any ambition 
for authorship. The work has been the outgrowth 
of the feeling that there is the need of just such a 
work for our ministry. 

James A. Davis. 
Nashville, Tenn., October 22, 1902. 



INTRODUCTION. 



It is Paul who says : ' ' Behold I show you a mys- 
tery," which the Revised Version puts : " Behold I 
tell you a mystery " (I Cor. 15:51). We too have a 
mystery, either to show or to tell. Not such however 
as was that of Paul, which Archdeacon Farrar para- 
phrases, " Behold, I make known to you a truth now 
made known to me by Revelation." Our mystery 
came to us not as Paul's, by revelation; on the con- 
trary, simply by that, that is, its twin sister, obser- 
vation; and yet it is none the less a mystery, which 
according to the Century, is: " Something that is in- 
explicable." Paul's mystery is certainly inexplicable; 
ours, if not inexplicable, will cause a whole roundelay 
of philosophizing to explain it. We can best present 
it in an interrogation : Why does Methodism, espe- 
cially the American branch of it, produce a race of 
bookmakers? The general estimate of the Metho- 
dists, is, that in scholarship, they are far behind their 
brothers of kindred Protestant faiths — far behind 
Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Lutherans and Bap- 
tists; and yet on the score of bookmaking, they are 
quite the equals of the most advanced of. these, if not 
a little ahead. We remember reading years ago, a 
review on McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedea, by an 
Episcopalian editor, the trend of which was of the na- 

(vi) 



INTRODUCTION. vii 

ture of a lament, that it was left for Methodists to pro- 
duce such a work: and it, not only, but other works 
of similar scholarship. We cannot call to mind the 
source of this review, for we read it in the days of our 
editorship; but we are most sure of its correctness. 

And this is our mystery: Why should a sect 
scarcely more than a century old and supposedly the 
most unlearned, have overrun the world not only with 
its faith, but with its books? 

We leave for others to give the roundelay of philos- 
ophy alluded to, while we concern ourselves about the 
fact, as it relates especially to the Methodism, that is 
denominationally known as " African. " African 
Methodism has produced and is producing more books, 
1 ' good bad and indifferent ' ' than all the other branch- 
es of " African'" Christianity in America put together. 
This we say simply as a matter of fact, and in no 
sense as a matter of boasting. The why and how, we 
leave for others to discover. 

Among these Methodists in all truth, it may be 
said: " Of making many books there is no end." As 
it relates to our own Church, from the days of Noah 
Cannon's " Rock of Wisdom," and A. R. Green's 
' ' Life of Dandridge F. Davis, ' ' and the ' ' Brief Sketch 
of the Iyife of Rev. David Canyon," by the same writ- 
er, to the present, the ministers of our Church may 
be said to have stepped upon one another's heels in 
the great race of authorship: History, Biography, 
Theology, Church Economy: Sermonizing, Poetry, 
these and other kindred subjects, have occupied their 
attention; not as masters, to be sure, but as those who 



viii INTRODUCTION . 

sat at the feet of great subjects and looking up into 
their faces drew such inspiration from them, as made 
silence impossible. At the venture of criticism they 
dared to put their thoughts upon paper, and send them 
out into the world. 

The very latest of these is the volume for which 
these words, are to serve as an introduction: "The 
History of Episcopacy: Prelatic and Moderate." We 
have not been privileged to read the work. "I send 
you," says the writer, "the Preface and Contents, hop- 
ing that from these you can get a bird's eye view of my 
work, so as to enable you to write it." 

Any introduction written under such circumstances 
must of course be largely general: for upon such a 
subject as Episcopacy in the Christian Church, espe- 
cially any particular phase of it, a bird's eye view 
scarcely suffices; certainly not if the merits of it are 
to be touched. And yet we know the writer to be a 
man of sound judgment and ready research. Giving 
such qualities as these, there is not much danger that 
any reasonable subject will suffer at his hands. In 
the presence of the younger generation of college bred, 
Dr. Davis may say with Themistocles, as recorded by 
Plutarch: 4 °Tis true I never learned how to tune a 
harp or play upon a lute, but I know how to raise a 
small and inconsiderable city, to glory and greatness." 
And yet we may say, that in the harp tuning and lute 
playing of this work, there is doubtless such magic, as 
will cause to blush the men whom the schools have 
finished and not they themselves. 



INTRODUCTION. ix 



Dr. Davis has chosen a most intricate subject; how 
well he has handled it, the work itself will show. 
Most heartily do we commend it. 

Benj. Tucker Tanner, 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. PAGE. 

The Organization of the Apostolic Church 1 

CHAPTER II. 
The Model of the Apostolic Church 10 

(a) In the East, the Synagogue 10 

(b) In the West, the Basilica 15 

CHAPTER III. 

Proofs as shown from the Scriptures that Elders and 
Bishops were the same Order and Office 20 

Proof First — The Conventional Use, in the Scriptures, of 
the Names Bishop and Presbyter 20 

Proof Second — Bishops and Presbyters One and the Same 
in That They Had the Same Ordination 24 

Proof Third — Bishops and Presbyters One and the Same 
in the Oversight of the Churches, But Not of the Ministers.. 25 

CHAPTER IV. 

Proofs that Elders and Bishops were one and the same 
Order and Office, as shown by the most trustworthy 
writings of the early Church Fathers. 29 

(a) The Evidence of the First Century 30 

(b) The Evidence of the Second Century 35 

(c) The Evidence of the Third Century 41 

M 



CONTENTS. xi 



CHAPTER V. 

Episcopacy and its Supremacy. 46 

(a) The Genius and Theory of the Christian Institution 
Tended Toward Episcopacy 47 

(b) Apostolic Superintendency 49 

(c) Territorial Expansion 51 

(d) Doctrinal Controversy , 53 

(e) Order and Discipline 58 

CHAPTER VI. 

Broken Links in the Roman Chain, or the Nullity of Apos- 
tolic Succession 62 

(a) The Doctrine Stated 62 

(b) The Invalidity of Peter's Primacy as Shown From 

the Scriptures 65 

(c) Broken Link Number One 75 

(d) Broken Link Number Two 79 

(e) Broken Link Number Three 84 

(f) Broken Link Number Four 87 

CHAPTER VII. 

Anglicanism, or " The Historic Episcopate." 93 

(a) The Succession Lost 96 

(b) Matthew Parker's Consecration — Schismatic 98 

(c) The Claims to "The Historic Episcopate," an After- 
thought 106 

CHAPTER VIII. 

The Institution of the African Methodist Ministry, or 

the Ordination of Bishop Allen 117 

(a) The Validity of the Act 123 

(b) As to the Elements of Necessity 128 

CHAPTER IX. 

African Methodist Episcopacy 139 

(a) Itinerant Episcopacy 140 



xii CONTENTS. 



(b) Relation of African Methodist Episcopacy to Epis- 
copal Methodism 141 

(c) The Duties of Bishops 146 

CHAPTER X. 

The Office of the Presiding Eldership 152 

(a) The Origin of the Office 152 

(b) The Relation of Presiding Elders to the Episcopacy... 1 58 

(c) It Maintains an Efficient Ministry 163 

CHAPTER XI. 

The Only True Succession 168 

(a) Divine Call 

(b) The Indicia of Holiness, the Badge of True Succes- 
sion 173 

(c) Apostolic Doctrine and Evangelical Preaching 175 

(d) The Office Must Be Magnified 177 



The History of Episcopacy: 
PRELATIC AND MODERATE. 



CHAPTER I. 

THE ORGANIZATION OP THE APOSTOLIC 
CHURCH. 

The Church as an organized compact of 
Christian believers, occupies but a very small 
place in the teachings of Christ. But two 
instances are recorded in the Gospel, so far 
as we are able to observe, in which he 
referred to his followers in a churchly ca- 
pacity, viz. : Matt. 16:17-19; Matt. 18: 17. 

To the casual reader, it may appear in- 
credibly strange that the Church which was 
to play such an important role in the coming 
kingdom, should receive so little attention 
at the hands of our Lord ; but when it is re- 
membered that he came not for the purpose 
of establishing the Church, but "the King- 
dom of Heaven, ' ' which was greater tkan 
the Church, the whole is explicable. 

(i) 



The History of Episcopacy. 



Two things are clear in studying the 
New Testament, viz. : that the kingdom is 
the doctrine of the Gospels, while the 
Church is the doctrine of the Epistles. The 
former was the outgrowth of the work 
and teachings of Christ, while the latter 
was the outgrowth of the work and teach- 
ings of the apostles. 

Of the organisation of the Church as a 
visible expression of that kingdom, which 
is not of this world, our Lord had but little 
to do. During His earthly ministry he was 
occupied with the more weighty matter of 
setting forth in parables and beatitudes, the 
fundamental principles of the kingdom of 
heaven, and holding before men that condi- 
tion of universal righteousness, which he 
desired all men to attain. 

" The kingdom of he a ven" was the theme 
of His ministry. With the apostles howevei , 
the idea of the Church is more prominent, 
and for the good reason that the most seri- 
ous question for them was, how the sublime 
purpose of our Lord could best be accom- 
plished. The kingdom of heaven as set 
forth by our Lord related to a purpose to 
be accomplished, and the Church, the organ- 



The Apostolic Church. 



ized body of the believers unto a spiritual 
compact, seemed to the apostles the most 
fitting means for the accomplishment of this 
end. 

The idea of the kingdom was divine, but 
the idea of the Church, so far as its physical 
organism is concerned, is human. Hence 
it is that so little is said by our Lord in his 
teachings concerning the Church, which was 
to be the agency of righteousness, and the 
visible expression of the coming kingdom. 

It is apparent however from the scrip- 
tural references of which we have already 
made mention, as well as those made in the 
Epistles, that it was the will and purpose of 
the Divine Founder of our Christian religion, 
that his followers should be allied together 
in a co-operative capacity, having mutual 
sympathies and moral obligations toward 
one another as well as toward himself. 

But until the Day of Pentecost it will be 
observed (and for the reason above stated), 
there was no formal organization of the 
Church attempted either upon the part of 
Christ or the apostles. This introductory 
period — from the beginning of Christ's 
ministry until the Day of Pentecost — was 



The History of Episcopacy. 



taken up in the annunciation of certain 
great moral principles concerning the king- 
dom of heaven, and the indoctrination and 
sanctification of his apostles for the spe- 
cial work of inaugurating and carrying 
forward the interest of his kingdom, for 
which they were to be specially endowed. 

In the beginning, as well as throughout 
the history of the Christian Church both 
the divine and human elements were to be 
co-operative. While Christ was to be the 
Spirit, Life and Organic Head of the Church, 
the apostles were intrusted with its federal 
interest. In a word, it was to be a 
Spiritual Autonomy. 

The apostles were to be the governmental 
representatives of Christ in his Church and 
they were no ordinary men. They were a 
set of men divinely called, ordained and set 
apart by a special act of heaven (Acts 2: 
1-4) and were commissioned with plenipo- 
tentiary powers. They were to be more 
than missionaries. They were ambassadors 
with delegated authority to stand in Christ's 
stead; institute, ordain and legislate. In a 
word they were to be Christ's vicegerents. 

To this divine, Melchisedec ministry, 
(without any predecessors, or successors 



The Apostolic Church. 



saving as to faith and doctrine), Christ gave 
some special instructions in regard to their 
apostolate, which makes their institutional 
mission self-evident. To Peter, representa- 
tively, He said, * ■ I will give unto thee the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what- 
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven/' 
(Matt. 16: 19.) To the apostles collectively, 
He said: "Whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatso- 
ever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in 
heaven. ' ' (Matt. 18 : 18. ) From these divine in- 
junctions, it is clear that the apostles were 
divinely chosen and appointed to be the 
originators and legislators of the Church of 
Christ on earth. To them it was given, to 
shape its polity and announce its doctrine 
and to give whatever regulations and in- 
structions they deemed best for its future 
growth and development. 

The commission was couched in the 
following language: "Go ye therefore, and 
teach" or rather as the new version would 
have it — "make disciples of all nations, bap- 



The History of Episcopacy. 



tiding them in the name of the Father, and, 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have told yon: and, lo, I am with you alway 
even unto the end of the world. ' ' (Matt. 
28: 19-20.) This divine commission author- 
ized them to proceed at once on their 
institutional mission, but not until they had 
received the special power of which we have 
spoken, "But tarry ye in the city of Jeru- 
salem, until ye be endued with power 
from on -high." (Luke 24: 49.) The act 
of their faith and obedience having been 
accomplished, "The Holy Ghost," the pow- 
er promised from on high was received, and 
straightway the apostles began to organ- 
ize the newly baptized believers into a 
Christian compact, called the Church. The 
record (Acts 2 : 37-47) of this historic event 
informs us that when they heard Peter, ' 'they 
were pricked in their hearts, and said unto 
Peter and to the rest of the apostles, men 
and brethren what shall we do? Then Pe- 
ter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost * * ^ * * 



The Apostolic Church. 



And the same day there were added unto 
them about three thousand souls. And that 
they continued steadfastly in the apostles' 
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking 
bread, and in prayers. And all that believed 
were together and had all things common. 
And the Lord added to the Church daily such 
as should be saved. ' ' 

Such are the historic facts and incidents 
connected with the organic formation ot 
the Christian Church. It will be seen 
therefore, that in the institution of the 
Christian Church, Christ gave no formal 
directions as to its government or any ec- 
clesiastical polity to be observed. His min- 
isters were to be divinely called. This 
right he reserved to himself; but the matter 
of ecclesiastical arrangement as to orders 
and office, and the general government of 
his Church, he left to his followers as time, 
growth and conditions might suggest. 
Hence the polity of the Christian Church 
being human, it has always been influenced 
by, and modeled after the civil laws and 
government of the country, in which it finds 
an existence. 

It is also apparent that at first there was 
no Apostolic Constitution so-called, no fixed 



Tjie History of Episcopacy. 



code of ecclesiastical laws for the government 
of the infant Church. But on the other 
hand, a few general rules and principles, 
simple and yet sufficient for the Church as a 
rule of faith and practice in its embryo 
existence. 

Says Bishop Hurst : ' "The organization of 
the Church was the direct result of the re- 
markable scenes at Pentecost * 
Only a general organization however, was 
effected, the most simple arrangements 
were made for government, as the 
believers were as yet but few, and confined 
to a narrow area. The more elaborate pol- 
ity was left for the future needs of the Church 
to take its shape according to the expansion 
of the societies and their individual require- 
ment. ' ' (Short history of the E}arly Church, 
p. 3.) But it was not long until under the 
afflatus of the Holy Spirit, which had taken 
possession of the apostles and the great mis- 
sionary spirit which led them everywhere 
preaching Jesus and Him crucified, until 
there were two live and powerful church 
communities at work, the eastern and the 
western. Both were one and the same, as to 
faith and doctrine, but marked and distinct 



The Apostolic Church, 



as to individuality, and with a slight differ- 
ence as to polity. And this peculiar unlike- 
ness as to individuality, and this shade of 
difference as to polity, are accounted for in 
the difference of the language of the people 
and the civil government in which each had 
an existence. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE MODEL OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 

In studying- the polity of the 
in the east Eastern Church, we find that 
the synagogue, the synagogue with its officiary 
and order of worship was closely observed 
by the apostles. The government and reg- 
ulations which they made for the Palestinian 
Churches, all correspond in a remarkable and 
unmistakable manner with the whole system 
of the Jewish Synagogue. 

Says the Rev. Dr. Jacobs, a high author- 
ity on the Ecclesiastical Polity of the New 
Testament Government: "As the Chris- 
tian religion rose up out of the very depths 
and essence of Judaism, following it as its 
foreordained end and consumation, it might 
reasonably be expected that such forms and 
regulations of the Jewish Church as were 
not inconsistent with the principles of the 
Gospel Dispensation, would be retained and 

adapted to its use. And the apostles being 
do) 



Model of the Church. n 

men deeply imbued with Jewish feelings, and 
( it may be said ) with Jewish prejudices 
must have been inclined to deviate no furth- 
er from the customary observances of their 
law than their divine instructor taught 
them to be absolutely required. And they 
must have felt that it was wise to give their 
new religious life and worship as little inno- 
vation and strangeness to Jewish minds aspos- 
sible. ' ' (The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New 
Testament, p. 94.) Bishop Lightfoot in his 
learned ' 'Excursus " on the Christian Minis- 
try, appended to the Epistle to the Philip- 
pians, p. 190, says: * 'Christian congregations 
in Palestine long continued to be designated 
by this name Synagogue*/' and Archbishop 
Whately in "Kingdom of Christ Delineat- 
ed, ' ' p. 108, remarks : ' ' Whenever a Jew- 
ish Synagogue existed which was brought, 
the whole or the chief part of it, to embrace 
the Gospel, the apostles did not there so 
much as form a Christian Church, or con- 
gregation, ekklesia, as make an exist- 
ing congregation Christian by introduc- 
ing the Christian sacraments and worship, 
and establishing whatever regulations were 
requisite for the newly adopted faith, leav- 



12 The History of Episcopacy. 

ing the machinery (if I may so speak) of 
government unchanged. ' ' 

To multiply references is unnecessary. It 
is obvious that by reason of the almost per- 
fect agreement of the worship of the early 
Christian Church with that of the synagogue 
as to simplicity and official arrangements, 
the apostles naturally, if not necessarily, 
adopted the synagogue as its model; and 
this leads us in our search for the first offi- 
cial designation in the Christian Ministry, 
"Elder" or ' ' Presbyter. ' ' 

In connection with every synagogue with 
its simple system of worship, there always 
existed the Synedrion, or local court, the 
seat of the Elders. These religious teachers, 
simple in their attire and unconsecrated by 
any special rights and unrestricted by any 
rule of succession, were known as "The 
Rulers of the Synagogue" (Luke 8:49), more 
commonly called "Elders," a title which 
the Jews likely borrowed from the Egyp- 
tians. Its first mention being made in con- 
nection with the funeral pageant that went 
up from Egypt to bury Joseph. (Gen. 50:7.) 
"The office of the Elder, " says Dr. Smith's 
Dictionary of the Bible, "with the Jews as 



Model of the Church. 13 

well as the Egyptians, and wherever a pa- 
triarchal system of government was in vogue, 
was purely political; but it gradually grew 
into religious prominence with the Jews, un- 
til at the beginning of the Christian era, 
they, the elders, were a separate and distinct 
body from the Sanhedrin, whose duties were 
more religious than political." They had 
the control and the disposition of all moral 
issues and were the religious directors of the 
people, one of whom, the most aged and 
honored was styled the Presbyter or ' 'ruler 
of the Synagogue. ' ' This ruling Elder was 
regarded as the chief pastor of the Syna- 
gogue. (Acts 18:8-17.) The Churches in 
the East therefore, having the Synagogue as 
their model, very naturally applied this title 
to their chief pastors. They were called El- 
ders or Presbyters. 

Bishop Lightfoot in his Commentary on 
Philippians (Eighth Edition, London 1885, 
p. 95) in speaking of the early history of the 
words Presbyterus, Elders, Presbyter, or 
Priest, says: "Illustrations indeed might 
be found in almost all nations, ancient or 
modern, in the Gerousia of Sparta, for in- 
stance, in the Senatus of Rome in the Signo- 



14 The History of Episcopacy. 

ria of Florence, or in the Aldermen of our 
own country and time, where the deliberate 
body originally took its name from the ad- 
vanced age of its members. Among the 
chosen people, we are met at every turn with 
presbyters or elders, in Church and State, 
from the earliest to the latest times. In the 
lifetime of the law-giver, in the days of the 
Judges, throughout the monarchy, during 
the captivity, after the return and under the 
Roman domination, the 'elders' appear as 
an integral part of the governing body of 
the country." But it is rather in a special 
religious development of the office, than in 
these national and civic Presbyteries that we 
are to look for the prototype of the Chris- 
tian Ministry. Over every Jewish Syna- 
gogue, whether at home or abroad, a coun- 
cil of Elders presided. It was not unnatural 
therefore, that when the Christian Syna- 
gogue took its place by the side of the Jew- 
ish, a similar organization should be adopted 
with such modifications as circumstances 
required; and thus the name familiar under 
the Jewish dispensation was retained under 
the new 



Model of the Church. 15 

While the Palestinian Church 
in the west took its model after the Syna- 
the basilica. g g Ue ^ the Church in the West, 
on the other hand, the majority of whose 
converts were pagans, in giving organic 
shape and ecclesiastical direction to its 
societies, naturally fashioned them after 
its idea of government which was more dem- 
ocratic than theocratic ; and which was found 
in the Basilica, a hall or court-room, which 
originated with the Athenians, and was 
used by the king and his counselors for the 
making and the administration of laws. In 
addition to its original use in the days of 
Roman supremacy, it was used as a market 
place (Acts 17:17), a place of exchange, and 
a place for public assemblies, where the peo- 
ple met to deliberate on matters pertaining 
to the public good, and also for diversions. 
These public places were generally open to 
all the citizens of the Roman province. 
Hence when Paul and Barnabas entered upon 
their missionary tour in the West, they 
found these public places of great service to 
them. Their frequency, admissibility and 
adaptability rendered them the most suita- 
ble places for the delivery of those public 



1 6 The History of Episcopacy. 

discourses, which from the beginning were 
employed by the apostles as a means of 
Christian edification. Now it must be re- 
membered that the word Church is political 
and of Greek derivation, coming from the 
Greek form ekklesia, which was first used 
by the Hellenists to signify, the calling 
out, the gathering together or the assem- 
bling of the people for deliberation on mat- 
ters pertaining to the general good of soci- 
ety, the city or State. 

The individual who called out and presid- 
ed over the ekklesia (church) was known as 
the Archon, most generally known as the 
Episcopus. Hence in designating the chief 
pastor, who had the superintendency over 
the church community, the western societies- 
used the word which to them conveyed the 
idea of oversight or superintendency, which 
was iDpiscopus, and from this derivation we 
have our Anglican word, Bishop. Bishop 
Lightfoot (ib., p. 95) says that: "Episco- 
pus, " "bishop," "overseer," were official 
titles among the Greeks. In the language 
of the Athenians, it was used especially to 
designate a new colony or acquisition, so 
that the Attic bishop corresponds to the 



Model of the Church. 17 

Spartan harmost. The title however, is not 
confined to Attic usage, it is a designation; 
for instance, of the inspectors, whose busi- 
ness it was to report to the Indian kings, of 
the commissioners appointed by Mithridates 
to settle affairs in E^phesus, of magistrates 
who regulate the sale of provisions under 
the Romans, and of certain officers in Rhodes, 
whose functions are unknown. ' ' 

Episcopus, therefore with the Hellenists 
with whom the word originated, meant an 
"Inspector" or "Overseer;" a political per- 
sonage, an individual who had the control of 
governmental affairs. Hence the word orig- 
inally meant a political superintendent or 
overseer. It was born of the Greek mind 
to convey this idea, and was not only used 
by the Greeks, but by the Romans and the 
entire western world, to designate individu- 
als who had the control in matters of State. 
It is clear therefore, that in the Apostolic 
times (Presbyterus) and (Episcopus) were 
merely conventional terms used by the eastern 
and western Churches to designate one and the 
same person. The eastern Churches used 
Presbuteroi while the western Churches 
used Episcopoi. 



18 The History of Episcopacy. 

And here it is worthy of note that wher- 
ever the word Dpiscopoi appears in the New 
Testament, with but one exception, it is 
used by Paul, the western apostle of Chris- 
tianity to the western pastors or western 
Churches. The word (Presbuteros) was used 
by the western Churches .interchangeably 
with the word (iDpiscopus). But the eastern 
Churches never used the word iDpiscopus in- 
terchangeably with the word (Presbuteros). 
iDpiscopus was a word peculiarly western. 
Bishop Lightfoot in discussing the history 
of the two words Presbyters and Bishops 
says: "To the office of the Gentile Church 
alone, is the term applied as a synonym of 
presbyter. At Philippi in Asia Minor, in 
Crete, the presbyter is so-called. In the 
next generation the title is employed in a 
letter written by the Greek Church of Rome 
to the Greek Church of Corinth. Thus 
the word would seem to be especially Hel- 
lenic. Beyond this we are left to conjecture; 
but, if we may assume that the directors of 
religious and social clubs among the heathen 
were commonly so-called, it would naturally 
occur, if not to the Gentile Christians them- 
selves, at all events, to their heathen asso- 



Model of the Church. 19 

ciates, as a fit designation for the presiding 
member of the new society. The infant 
Church of Christ which appeared to the 
Jews as a synagogue would be regarded by 
the heathen as a confraternity. But what- 
ever may have been the origin of the term, 
it did not displace the earlier name presby- 
ter, which still held its place as a synonym, 
even in Gentile congregations. ' ' Hence we 
see that the use of the two names, Presby- 
ter and Bishop, in Apostolic times was but 
conventional. They were simply synonyms. 
In the duties incumbent upon both the Elder 
and Bishop in the beginning there was not 
the slightest difference, their honors and du- 
ties being the same — "To feed the flock of 
God, taking the oversight thereof. ' ' (I Pe- 
ter 5:2.) 



CHAPTER III. 

PROOFS, AS SHOWN FROM THE SCRIPTURES, 

THAT ELDERS AND BISHOPS WERE OP 

THE SAME ORDER AND OFFICE. 

The New Testament is the bulwark of 
our faith, and the tower of our strength, 
and its declaration as to the qualifications, 
orders, duties and powers of the apostolic 
ministry must be our authority. All else is 
human, and can be accepted only as certain 
ecclesiastical arrangement, which seemed 
best to the early Church Fathers and High 
Churchmen of later times, for the further- 
ance of the Gospel, the edification of the 
Church and the glory of God. Let us then 
proceed to the law and to the testimony, 
therefore, for by its evidence our argument 
must either stand or fall. 

The conventional use of the 

proof first, names, Bishop and Presbyter 

in the New Testament, is proof 

that they were one and the same person. 

(20) 



Bishops and Presbyters. 21 

The first thing- that strikes one on inves- 
tigating this subject, is that these names are 
invariably used in common. Bishops are 
spoken of as Presbyters, and Presbyters are 
spoken of as Bishops. 

In Paul's Epistle to Titus (Chap. 1:5-7), 
we read, "For this cause left I thee in Crete, 
that thou shouldest set in order the things 
that are wanting, and ordain elders in every 
city, as I had appointed thee: If any be 
blameless, the husband of one wife, having 
faithful children not accused of riot or unru- 
ly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the 
steward of God; not self willed, not soon 
angry, not given to wine, no striker, not 
given to filthy lucre. ' ' In this passage of 
Scripture, both Eiders (Presbyters) and Bish- 
ops are mentioned in common. The passage 
deals with the proper subjects of ordination 
and the subjects mentioned that are worthy 
of holy hands, are indifferently spoken of as 
Elders (Presbyters) or Bishops. Here, it is 
clear that they are spoken of as one and the 
same person in office. In Acts 20:17-28, we 
read, ' ' And from Miletus, he (Paul) sent to 
Ephesus, and called the elders (presbyters) 
of the Church. ' ' After delivering unto them 



22 The History of Episcopacy. 

that eloquent address, in which he reminded 
them of his faithfulness to God and the 
Church, he charged them in the twenty- 
eighth verse, saying, "Take heed therefore 
unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over 
the which the Holy Ghost hath made ) r ou 
overseers, (episkopoi or bishops) to feed 
the church of God, which he hath purchased 
with his own blood. ' ' 

In this passage as in the above, Elders 
(Presbyters) and Bishops are spoken of in 
common. In the call, they are mentioned as 
Elders (Presbyters) and in the charge they 
are addressed as Bishops (Episkopoi). The 
identity is clear to the most casual reader. 

St. Peter, who was distinctively the eastern 
apostle of Christianity, as St. Paul was -of 
the West, in his first Epistle 5:1-3, uses lan- 
guage quite as bold and convincing as that 
of Paul on this point. "The elders which 
are among you I exhort, who am also an el- 
der, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, 
and also a partaker of the glory that shall 
be revealed: Eeed the flock of God which 
is among you, taking the oversight thereof, 
not by constraint, but willingly; not for 
filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as 



Bishops and Presbyters. 23 

being lords over God's heritage, but being 
ensamples to the flock. " It is clear that in 
the text "elder' ' and Bishop are one and the 
same as to order and office, the word Elder 
implying order; while the word Bishop im- 
plies office. Both are inherent in the one 
and same individual. The word Bishop oc- 
curs for the last time in the New Testa- 
ment in I Peter 2:25, "For ye were as sheep 
going astray ; but are now returned unto 
the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. ' ' It 
is obvious that the word Bishop in this text 
has reference to Christ. And be it under- 
stood, that he is not spoken of as the "Chief 
Shepherd and Bishop of pastor, but of the 
souls of the sheep, which had gone astray. 
Thus in the last instance, where the word 
Bishop occurs in the New Testament as well 
as in the above-mentioned instances, we find 
that the word Bishop is used in common 
with the word "elder" and " Shepherd.' ' 
And now what can this farfiily of names 
mean if not a commonality. 

The conclusion to which the language of 
the Scripture leads us is, that these names 
were used conventionally or in common; and 
it is the logic of language that where names 



24 The History of Episcopacy. 

are used conventionally the things are one 
and the same. Says the Rev. Mr. Powell 
(in Apostolic Succession, p. 89), "The com- 
munity of names in the New Testament be- 
tween bishops and presbyters implies a com- 
munity of attributes, a substantial identity 
of nature : and that bishops and presbyters 
are not only nominally but really and indeed 
one and the same office. ' ' 

Bishops and Presbyters 
were one and the same, in 

PROOF SECOND. Q fa Q ^ ^ ^^ they had ^ 

same ordination, powers and 
duties. Read again Acts 20:17-28, and Titus 
1 :5-7. Nowhere in the New Testament is there 
spoken of or even hinted at, a special or- 
dination of Bishops as a separate and supe- 
rior order of ministers. By Divine Right, 
Bishops have nothing superior to Presbyters 
in ordination. Both are equal as to powers 
of ordination and of church government. In 
fact, the ordination act is inherent solety in 
the Presbytery. "Neglect not the gift that 
is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, 
with the laying on of the hands of the pres- 
bytery. " (I Timothy 4:14). This is the 
only instance in the Scripture, where there 



Bishops and Presbyters. 25 

is a direct mention of the act of ordination. 
If the old adage be true, that "A stream 
can rise no higher than its source, ' ' the ar- 
gument is clear that there can be no Scrip- 
tural ordination higher than that of the 
Presbytery. For in the Scriptures, only Pres- 
byters are ordainers. But believing as we 
do that Presbyters and Bishops were one 
and the same, and that each is implied in the 
name of the other; is it not understood that 
the word Bishop is implied in the word Pres- 
byter of the text; thus making both equal 
as to orders and in the power of conferring 
the ordination gift? In ordination, powers 
and duties, they are one and the same. 

Bishop and Presbyter are 

one and the same in that each 
proof third. had the oversight of Churches 

and not of ministers. In ev- 
idence of this statement let us re-exam- 
ine a few of the passages of Scripture 
already cited (I Peter 5:1): "The elders 
which are among you I exhort, who am also 
an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of 
Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that 
shall be revealed: Peed the flock of God 
which is among you, taking the oversight 



26 The History of Episcopacy. 

thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not 
for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither 
as being lords over God's heritage, buv being 
ensamples to the flock. ' ' In this Scripture, 
no illusion is made to the pastoral care of 
ministers, but of the flock of God. The 
Episkopountes, acting like Bishops of the 
text do not mean, as Romanists and High 
Churchmen, would say, that these Elders here 
addressed had been or were to be set apart 
as an order, separate and distinct from that 
of the Eldership. But that they were to act 
toward their flocks in their official capacity, 
as the Episkopoi of Greece did toward the 
assemblies, cities, or provinces, over which 
they had been placed. As they took the 
oversight, direction and government of their 
sufferage, so they (the Elders) were to "take 
the episcopal supervision of the flock of God 
not by constraint, not for filthy lucre, neither 
as being lords over God's heritage" as the 
heathen, but by "being examples to the 
flock. " In a word, leaving out mercenari- 
ness and force rule, characteristic of human 
power, they were to be as watchful and 
faithful in every particular as were the gov- 
ernors of Caesar. In this Scripture, there- 



Bishops and Presbjrters. 27 

fore, the pavstoral care of the flock is the only 
lesson taught. In Acts 20:28, Paul charged 
the Elders of E/phesus saying, ' ' Take heed, 
therefore unto yourselves, and to all the 
flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath 
made you overseers, to feed the church of 
God. " Here the same double reference is 
made to these chief pastors. They are called 
Elders and Episcopoi, Presbyters, Bishops, 
and the duty enjoined on them is the same, 
to take heed to the flock over which the 
Holy Ghost had appointed them and to feed 
the same. Each had the pastoral care of a 
flock, "the flock over the which the Holy 
Ghost hath made you overseers. ' ' Their ad- 
ministration and government were limited to 
the flocks and not to Shepherds. 

In I Timothy 3:1-5, Paul speaks of a 
Bishop's care of the Church of God, 
after the manner of a man "ruling 
well his own house, having his chil- 
dren in subjection. M I submit that in the 
language of the Scriptures, pastors are nev- 
er called children, but Shepherds and Stew- 
ards. But in this text, the subjects of the 
Bishops' s charge and government are like un- 
to children-the children of God, the members 



28 The History of Episcopacy. 

of the household of faith. Wherever in the 
New Testament the word Bishop is used in 
reference to oversight, it refers to the over- 
sight of the local flock of God and not to 
pastors. The hue and cry, therefore, of 
Romanists and High Churchmen, that Bish- 
ops are a superior order of ministers to Pres- 
byters and by divine right have the rule and 
government over them, is false and without 
foundation in the New Testament. The 
New Testament stands to prove that in 
Name, Ordination, Power and Duties, 
they are one and the same. 



CHAPTER IV. 

PROOFS THAT ELDERS AND BISHOPS WERE 
ONE AND THE SAME ORDER AND OFFICE 
AS SHOWN BY THE MOST TRUST- 
WORTHY WRITINGS OF THE 
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS. 

The early Church Fathers who were in el- 
bow touch with the apostles and familiar 
with the language, polities, doctrines and 
customs of apostolic times, are the next in 
evidence to the apostles themselves. It is 
agreed by all students of Sacred History and 
especially of Patristic and Canonical lit- 
erature, that the most trustworthy writings 
of the early Church Fathers, are confined to 
the first three centuries. And to the records 
of these early periods, the reader is asked to 
resort in this chapter. I^et the Fathers 
speak, and a free and impartial examination 
of their testimony will convince the most 
prejudiced mind, open to conviction, that 
with them, Bishops were not regarded as a 
superior order of ministers by divine right 

(29) 



30 The History of Episcopacy. 

to Presbyters, but one and the same, as to 
order and office. 

Clemens Romanus, the first 
first century of the Patristic writers, lived 
evidence. contemporary with the apostle 
Paul and was a colaborer of the great apos- 
tle to the Gentiles. (Phil. 4:3.) From him 
we have the first written record of the 
Apostolic Church after the apostles them- 
selves. The fact that he lived contempora- 
ry with St. Paul and others of the apostles, 
and was associated with them in their apos- 
tolate, makes his testimony both weighty 
and trustworth} r . Give audience and we 
shall hear what he has to say. 

In his Epistle to the Corinthian Church 
he remarks: "Preaching through countries 
and cities (that is to say the apostles preach- 
ing) appointed the first fruits of their con- 
version to be bishops and deacons over such 
as should afterwards believe having first 
proved them by the Spirit. Nor was this 
anything new, seeing that long before it 
was written concerning bishops and deacons, 
for thus saith the Scriptures, In a certain 
place I will appoint their overseers (bishops) 
in righteousness and their ministers (dea- 



Bishops and Presbyters. 31 

cons) in faith. ' ' Again he says, ' 'Ye walked 
according to the law of God, being subject 
to those who had the rule over you ; and giv- 
ing the honors that were fitting to such as 
were Presbyters among you, ' ' and still again 
he says, "For it would be no small sin in us 
should we cast off those from their episcopate 
who holily and without blame fulfill the du- 
ties of it * * * Blessed are those presby- 
ters who, having finished their course before 
these times * * * * for they have no fear 
lest any one should turn them out of their 
place. ' ' And lastly he says, ' i Only let the 
flock of Christ be in peace with the presby- 
ters that are set over it. ' ' 

Now it will be seen that in these four quo- 
tations from Clement, he does not use the 
terms, Bishops and Presbyters in the sense 
that they represent two separate and dis- 
tinct orders, but that they are one and the 
same. He speaks of Bishops and Deacons, 
as two separate and distinct orders; but he 
never speaks of Bishops and Presbyters. In 
these Clementine utterances two things are 
noticeable. First, the absence of any mention 
of the word Presbyter in the first quotation, 
which argues that with Clement, Presbyters 



32 The History of Episcopacy. 

were the same as Bishops; and secondly, 
that in the latter three quotations, the word 
Presbyter is used to the neglect of the word 
Bishop (and that too in reference to the 
Episcopate). This interchangeable use of the 
word Bishop and Presbyter argues conclu- 
sively that with Clement, Bishops and Pres- 
byters were one and the same in office. 

Ignatius, a learned and voluminous writer, 
wrote about the close of the first century. 
The time of his death is given by Dr. Cave 
as 101 A. D. Fifteen Epistles are accred- 
ited to him, but only three of them are con- 
sidered genuine. He is regarded however 
as among the strongest witnesses of all the 
Patristic writers for high Church Episco- 
pacy. At least thirty-five quotations are pro- 
duced from his Epistles to prove the Episco- 
pal claims of Rome. 

But says Stillingfleet, "In all those thir- 
ty-five testimonies produced out of Ignatius' 
Epistles for Episcopacy, I can meet with 
but one which is brought to prove the least 
semblance of an institution of Christ for 
Episcopacy; and if I be not much deceived, 
the sense of that place is clearly mistaken 
too." 



Bishops and Presbyters. 33 

Let us note a few of his strongest utter- 
ances, of which high churchmen make so 
much ado, In his Dpistle to the Magne- 
sians, he says, "The Presbyters preside in 
the place of the council of the apostles, ' ' 
and in his Epistle to the Smyrnians, he says, 
"Be ye subject to your Presbyters as unto 
the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope." 
' 'Let us all reverence the Presbyters as the 
sanhedrim of God, and college of apostles, ' ' 
"being subject to your Bishop as to the com- 
mand of God; and likewise to the Presby- 
tery." (lb.) We shall admit the quotations 
from Ignatius to be genuine for argument 
sake, for they will serve our purpose. First 
he says that, ' ' Presbyters are in the place 
of the council of the apostles, ' ' that they are 
"the sanhedrim of God, and the college of 
the apostles. ' ' Grant it, what does it ar- 
gue? Simply this: that if the Presbyters 
were in the place of the apostles, if they 
were the sanhedrim of God and college of 
apostles, the apostles being the highest or- 
der of piinisters known to the early Church, 
there could be no order in the Church higher 
than the Presbyters; for they, the Presby- 
ters were in the place of the apostles. Hence 
3 



34 The History of Episcopacy. 

there could be no superior order to the apos- 
tles, they being by an act of heaven, the 
first and highest order of the Christian min- 
istry. But what of " Being subject to your 
bishop as to the command of God: and so 
likewise to the presbytery?" This certain- 
ly argues High Church episcopacy. But let 
us see, there were no diocesan Bishops as 
yet. And Ignatius evidently meant that the 
Church was to be subject to its pastor and 
council of the Presbytery of the city or 
church community. It was the custom of 
apostolic times, that the Elders or pastors 
of the various Churches in a city or commu- 
nity should meet together for council. All 
church difficulties were submitted to them 
for adjudication and their judgment and ad- 
vice were to be regarded as final. 

The language of Ignatius can mean nothing 
more therefore than that the Church was to 
be subject to the Dlder or Bishop of the 
Church and the council of his associate Pres- 
byters. That this is the sense of his lan- 
guage is evident also from his manner of 
writing to various pastors. 

In addressing Polycarp, for instance he 
calls him overseer of the Smyrnians, and ex- 



Bishops and Presbyters. 35 

horts him to "make thy office to be respect- 
ed with all diligence both of body and spirit 
* I pledged my soul for those 
who are subject to the bishop and the pres- 
byters and the deacons. ' ' And in his Epis- 
tle to the Dphesians, he calls the pastor of 
the Dphesian Church its Bishop. 

How strikingly different his use of the 
word Bishop from that of modern church- 
men! With him, Bishop was not a diocesan 
officer, but a pastor. 

No further comment or dissertation is 
needed. It is clear from Ignatius ' own tes- 
timony, that by divine right he recognized 
no order in the Christian ministry higher 
than that of the Presbytery. Such is the 
testimony of the two most learned and trust- 
worthy witnesses of the first century. 

Justin Martyr, whose birth 

is given as 100 A. D., and 

^Stidence™" death at 163 A. D., is the 

first of the Patristic writers 

of the second century. He 

speaks of pastors in his First Apology 

(chaps. 85-88) as Presidents. He makes no 

reference to Presbyters or Bishops, but he 

denominates the presiding officer of Chris- 



36 The History of Episcopacy. 

tian congregations as Presidents. At least 
six times is this appellation given. 

When describing the order and manner of 
Christian worship, he says (ib., paragraph 
65), "Then is brought to the president of 
the brethren, bread and a cup of water and 
wine, which he receives and offers up praise, 
and glory to the Father of all things * 
* * And when the president has celebrated 
the eucharist, and all the people have as- 
sented, they whom we call deacons give to 
each of those present, a portion of the eu- 
charistic bread and wine and water, and 
carry them to those who are absent. ' ' This 
passage from Justin Martyr, needs no 
lengthy exposition, it is self-explanitory. 

The President was none other than the 
pastor or Presbyter. Justin Martyr seems 
to have been the first to apply the 
word President to the official head of the 
Church, and very naturally so, for it was 
during the time when he flourished (155 A. 
D.) that the Presbyters began to elect one of 
their number to preside when they came to- 
gether, instead of following the ancient cus- 
tom, for the most aged to occupy the center 
or highest chair. The one elected was called 



Bishops and Presbyters. 37 

the President or presiding Presbyter. The 
President, therefore of Justin Martyr was 
but another one of those conventional terms 
used by the early churchmen to designate 
the individual, called and set apart to su- 
perintend the flock of God. President was 
a new official title in Patristic literature, 
but used synonymously with Presbyter and 
Bishop. 

Irenaeus, a learned churchmen, the date 
of whose writings is placed somewhere be- 
tween 182-188 A. D., unlike Justin Martyr 
mentions, in his several iDpistles both Presby- 
ters and Bishops. But it is clear to the un- 
prejudiced student of facts, that he always 
mentions them synonymously. Note the 
fact, that Irenaeus in his E)pistle to Florinus 
(Duseb. Hist. Dec), speaks of Poly carp 
as, "That blessed and apostolic presbyter," 
and Polycarp it is well known, was Bishop of 
Symrna. Likewise in the celebrated contro- 
versy between the Asiatic Church and the Ro- 
man Church as to the celebration of Easter 
on the 14th Nisan, Irenaeus writes to Victor 
II, Bishop of Rome and calls his attention 
to the examples of his predecessors prior to 
Soter, and calls them not Bishops but Pres- 



38 The History of Episcopacy. 

byters. "And those presbyters who gov- 
erned before Soter, that Church over which 
you now preside, I mean Amicetus and Pius 
and Hyginus with Telesphorus and Xystus, 
neither observed it (the 14th Nisan) them- 
selves, nor did they permit their successors 
to observe it." (Euseb. Hist. Ecc. V. 24.) 

The thing to be noted here is, that each 
of the five persons mentioned, are reckoned 
as Bishop and are so counted in the chain of 
succession ; and yet Irenaeus calls them Pres- 
byters. Again, says he, "Wherefore obe- 
dience ought to be rendered to those who 
are Presbyters in the church, who have as 
we have shown succession from the apostles, 
and who with the succession of their Epis- 
copacy have a sure deposit of the truth di- 
vinely granted to them according to the 
good pleasure of our Heavenly Father." 
(Lib. 4, C. 43.) 

Now this text is one of the strongest sup- 
ports of high churchmen. They regard it 
an argument unanswerable for the superior- 
ity of Bishops to Presbyters by divine right. 
But let us see. Let us put it under the 
search light of a philosophic analysis. With 
the close of the apostolic age, the Church 



Bishops and Presbyters. 39 

was called upon to contend with numerous 
philosophies and false doctrines: and the 
question which confronted the Church was 
whether it should have a definitely inter- 
preted creed or a chaos of speculations. It was 
evident that the salvation of the Church 
from disintegration must rest ■ ' upon the ba- 
sis of a Catholic and apostolic faith," and 
that those who were the successors of the 
apostles in office as to faith and doctrine, 
should be regarded as the custodians of her 
faith and the exponents of her creed. 

This, the farsighted Irenaeus saw and 
urged with all the logic and force of his 
keen intellect. Dr. Hatch in his learned 
work on "The Organization of the Darly 
Christian Church" (p. 96) says, "With 
great rhetorical force and dialectical subtil- 
ity, Irenaeus, the bishop of the chief Chris- 
tian Church in Gaul, maintained that the 
standard of Christian teaching was the 
teaching of the Churches which the apostles 
had founded, — which teaching he held to be 
on all essential points the same. He main- 
tained the existence, and he asserted the au- 
thority, of a fides, catholica — the general 
belief of the Christian Churches, which was 



40 The History of Episcopacy. 

also the fides apostolica, the belief which 
the apostles had taught. To that fides ca- 
tholics, et apostolica, all individual opin- 
ions and interpretations were to be referred. 
Now it is in the light of these conditions 
and this teaching of Irenaeus, which had be- 
come generally accepted by the post apostolic 
followers, that the president of each Chris- 
tian society or community should be regard- 
ed as the custodian of apostolic faith and 
doctrine; that we are to understand him 
when he speaks of the presbyters, who with 
the succession of their Episcopacy, have a 
sure deposit of the truth divinely granted to 
them according to the good pleasure of our 
Heavenly Father. " He evidently meant 
that as the Presbyters were the successors 
of the apostles as to faith and doctrine, they 
were to be believed and obeyed in matters of 
doctrine, and thus the unity of the Church 
maintained. This, we think is clearly the 
meaning of the learned Irenaeus which es- 
tablishes the fact that with him, Presbyters 
and Bishops were one and the same as to 
order and office. And if this be not suffi- 
cient testimony to establish the official iden- 
tity of the word Presbyter or Bishop, as 



Bishops and Presbyters. 41 

they were known to Irenaeus, one other 
fact confirms our conviction, viz. : that in 
addressing* the Asiatic clergy, he invariably 
calls them Bishops while on the other hand, 
when writing to the Roman clergy, address- 
es them as Presbyters. And yet we know 
that they were one as to order and office 
and so recognized by Irenaeus. 

This conventional or indifferent use of 
Presbyter and Bishop settles, we say, our 
conviction that with Irenaeus they were one 
and the same. Such is the testimony of two 
of the most noted of the Patristic writers 
of the second century. 

The first Church Father 
of the third century is Clem- 
^raffi™* ens Alexandrinus. He made 
his impress upon the world 
and wrote his name in the 
annals of church history, about 204 A. D. 
He was pious, learned and fertile with his 
pen. Unlike many of the Patristic writers, 
he dealt not so much in Polemic controver- 
sies and schismatic quarrels as he did upon 
the necessity of the new birth and doctrine 
of Christian perfection. In all of his writ- 
ings, there is, so far as I have been able to 



42 The History of Episcopacjr. 

determine, but one passage which directly 
bears upon this subject. In the seventh 
book of Public Worship he says, ' 'One part 
of it is performed by superior ministers, 
another part by inferior ministers. This 
superior part is performed by Presbyters; 
the inferior or servile part by Deacons." 
Here the identity of Bishops and Presbyters 
is apparent from the fact that no provision is 
made for Bishops, as such in the order of Pub- 
lie Worship. The logical conclusion there- 
fore to which we are led, is that they were 
included in the order of the superior min- 
isters who performed the superior part — the 
Presbyters. 

Cyprian, the learned African Bishop, 
born in Carthage, about the beginning 
of the third century, began his labors in 
the Christian Church, 264 A. D., and in less 
than ten years, sealed his faith in the Gos- 
pel as a martyr. He held very exalted views 
of the iDpiscopacy, and was, says the 
Rev. Mr. Powell (Apostles Succession, p. 
126), "perhaps the highest in his notion on 
this subject of all genuine fathers." But 
while he in his views was the most exalted 
of all the genuine Fathers on the suprem- 



Bishops and Presbjrters. 43 

acy of Bishops to that of Presbyters, it is ev- 
ident that he did not regard them so by di- 
vine right, but a necessitous arrangement. 

While in hiding from Decius, he writes to 
his clergy, saying, "I beseech you according 
to your faith and religion that you perform 
your duties and also those belonging to me 
so that nothing may be wanting either as to 
discipline or diligence " (Dp. 5), and then 
after mentioning certain matters of Church 
government, he says again, "I rely upon 
your love and your religion, which I well 
know, and by these letters I exhort and com- 
mit the charge to you, that you whose pres- 
ence does not expose you to such perils, would 
discharge my duty, act in my place and per- 
form all those things which the administra- 
tion of the Church requires. " (E}p. 6.) 
And again, ' 'When by the grace of God, I re- 
turn unto you, then we will, as our mutual 
honor requires, confer in common upon 
those things which have been done, or which 
still remains to be done. " (lb.) 

These passages from the illustrious Cy- 
prian are so self-evident that it seems a 
travesty upon intelligence to attempt com- 
ment. No man, unless he be blind to facts 



44 The History of Episcopacy. 

and ignorant of the logic of language, can 
deny that these passages do not prove deci- 
sively that with Cyprian, Bishops and Pres- 
byters were possessors of rights and powers in 
common, the Bishop only being regarded as 
chief among equals — and that by human ar- 
rangement. It is further evident that with 
Cyprian, the Bishopric was an office in the 
Christian ministry created by the Church 
instead of an order instituted by God, from 
his language in rebuking the unchurchly 
practice of the reception of the lapsed back 
into the Church by laymen. Says he (Ep. 
55, Dr. Barrow's Pope's Supremacy), "Nor 
was there one priest or bishop for a time in 
the church, nor a judge thought on for a 
time to supply the room of Christ. ' - And 
this is what we call, in legal parlance, sub- 
mitting the question, for he expressly de- 
clares "for a time, " that is to say in the be- 
ginning there was no Bishop or judge, no 
superior judicial head to supply the room of 
Christ. And what is the logical inference 
here? Namely, that if as Cyprian says, 
"For a time, there was no bishop of judge 
thought on to supply the room of Christ, ' ' 
then it is just as we have maintained, that 



Bishops and Presbyters. 45 

in the beginning of the Church there was no 
Bishop such as was known in Cyprian's day. 
Hence, Bishops as superior officers were 
an after thought, the creatures of human 
authority, constituted primarily for discipline 
and order. And this is the testimony of all 
the post apostles and Patristic writers, that 
Bishops as such, were not the creatures of 
divine constitution, but of human arrange- 
ment, created in the wisdom of the Church 
that heresies and schisms might be taken 
away and the unity and order of the Church 
preserved. 



CHAPTER V. 

EPISCOPACY AND ITS SUPREMACY. 

To the student of history, the evolution 
of twenty centuries has wrought marvelous 
changes in the social, intellectual, political 
and religious realms. 

In no sphere of thought and action how- 
ever, is this more strikingly clear than in 
the ecclesiastical domain. Between the 
simple Scriptural Presbyter, Bishop of the 
first century and the exalted ecclesiastical 
functionaries known in our day, in various 
branches of the Christian Church, as Bish- 
ops, there is the greatest difference. 

Says the Rev. Mr. Hatch (The Organiza- 
tion of the early Christian Church, p. 109), 
4 'Between the primitive episcopus and the 
Mediaeval bishop there is so wide an interval 
that those who are familiar with the picture 
of the latter, may find it difficult to recog- 
nize the portrait of the former. ' ' But at 
the same time continues he, "That the inter- 
val is not the chasm of an impassible gulf; 
(46) 



Episcopal Supremacy. 47 

it is a space of historic ground, every step 
of which can be traced. ' ' This we affirm, 
and in this chapter it shall be our endeavor 
to trace the successive steps which lead to 
the introduction of the office of the Bishop- 
ric into the Christian ministry and its ulti- 
mate supremacy. 

As early as the middle of the second cen- 
tury, and on down through subsequent his- 
tory, we find the Bishop an officer in the 
Christian ministry superior in rank, dignity 
and power to the E/lder. How came it so? 

The Genius and The- 
the genius and theory ory of the Christian In- 
of the institution, stitutions tended toward 
Bpiscopacy. It seems 
clear from the following analogy that the 
embryo idea of an episcopal form of Church 
government was foreshadowed in the Genius 
and Theory of the Institution itself, which 
idea the apostles very naturally developed. 
"The kingdom of Heaven " — the Christian 
Church — was analogous to the "Kingdom of 
David. ' ' In the Kingdom of David, a coun- 
cil of Elders officiated in all matters of gov- 
ernment and discipline. This council va- 
ried in number from three to ten in every 



48 The History of Episcopacy. 

Synagogue; and when in session sat in a 
semicircle; one of whom, the most aged gen- 
erally, sat as president of the council in the 
center of the circle on an elevation above his 
fellows. He was styled by way of emi- 
nence, "The ruler of the Synagogue." 
(Luke 8:49.) 

The early Christian societies, many of 
which were converted Synagogues very nat- 
urally adopted this Presbyterial — episcopal 
form of government, a government in which 
one was chief among equals. "The early 
Christian churches, were constructed as the 
Jewish synagogues had been constructed, in 
accordance with this theory of the nature of 
the governing body." (Id. p. 3.) 

Says the Rev. Mr. Powell (Apostolical 
Succession, p. 117), "The order was usual, 
in the meeting of ministers in the primitive 
Church, for the ministers' chairs to be set in 
semicircles. The middle chair was raised a 
little above the rest. The highest presby- 
ter or priest sat in this, and the other pres- 
byters or priests sat around him. The dea- 
cons were never allowed chairs; they always 
stood * * * * the presbyters sat in 
them, and thus in council presided over the 
church in common. ' ' 



Episcopal Supremacy. 49 

Now from this theory of a Presbyterate 
form of government adopted by the apostles, 
which necessitated a President either by mu- 
tual consent or election, the Episcopal form 
of government was evolved, and naturally 
so, when we take under consideration the 
tendency of the age towards centralization 
of power. 

The Episcopal theory of 
apostolic government seems next to 

superintendence have received encouragement 
from the lives of certain of 
the apostles, viz. : James, the Lord's brother, 
at Jerusalem, Timothy at Ephesus, Titus 
at Crete and Paul at Antioch. Dach of 
these apostles exercised a sort of general 
supervision over their respective church 
communities. The tremendous influence of 
these men's lives, who had been all but offi- 
cially supreme in their day, was significantly 
suggestive, and did, we believe, give much 
weight to the Episcopal idea of government 
foreshadowed in the genius and theory of 
the coming Kingdom. 

Says the Rev. J. C. McGee, D. D. (Apos- 
tolic Organism, p. 164), "Some have re- 
jected the idea of an episcopate as a distinct 



50 The History of Episcopacy. 

clerical office, declare it not to be justifiable 
in any form by the New Testament or by 
church history. However, the authority not 
only of the apostles in their special and 
unique mission, but the authority which the 
apostle Paul delegated to Timothy and Ti- 
tus may doubtless be considered the embryo 
of the episcopacy of the following age, and 
which has existed during all the centuries in 
great parts of the general Church, that be- 
ing the pattern which the Churches probably 
followed, and which suggested the nature 
and measure and functions, and authority 
which were committed to their bishops at 
first." 

4 'It is very apparent that the first Churches 
could not have been put in an aggressive atti- 
tude and movement without there first having 
been some one specially instructed and placed 
in a position of superior control to push the 
work. Besides, as the Churches multiplied, 
there arose naturally a plurality of Elders 
or pastors, who, when they met in council 
or conference for the transaction of business 
of mutual interest must necessarily have had 
a presiding officer of some kind, by whatever 
name he might be called. Thus in the apos- 



Episcopal Supremacy. 51 

tolic and early post apostolic period, a mod- 
erate form of episcopacy was evolved, a 
natural development of the apostolic pattern 
and germ." 

Territorial Expansion was 
territorial evidently the next step lead- 
expansion. ing to the supremacy of the 

Bishopric. The apostles and 
their immediate followers mindful of the di- 
vine injunction, "Go ye into all the world 
and preach the Gospel to every creature, ' ' 
went everywhere "preaching Jesus and him 
crucified. ' ' Every city was seized upon as a 
center of operation, a nucleus for a Christian 
community, out from which, when once a 
permanent footing was secured, they went 
into the suburbs and* rural districts making 
converts and establishing Churches. 

In this radical manner they operated until 
generally there was a group of Churches 
which extended far into the suburban parts. 
Over each of these Churches there was a lo- 
cal Presbyter or pastor. The senior Pres- 
byter by whose efforts, or under whose di- 
rections the community had been built up 
was regarded with great reverence and fa- 
vor by all the Churches of the community. 



52 The History of Episcopacy. 

His spiritual and official functions were no 
greater than those of his fellow Presbyters, 
duly set apart to that office, but the fact 
that he was the parent pastor of all, there 
was conceded to him a kind of general su- 
perintendency. 

Mosheim says (Vol. I. XLII), "A primi- 
tive bishop was, as it should seem, none 
other than the chief or principal minister of 
an individual Church, which at the period 
of which we are speaking, was seldom so 
numerous, but that it could be assembled un- 
der one roof * * * * Whatever ar- 
rangements might be deemed eligible were 
proposed by him to the people for their 
adoption in a general assembly. In fine, a 
primitive bishop could neither determine nor 
enact anything of himself, but was bound to 
conform to and carry into effect whatever 
might be resolved by the presbyters and the 
people. It was not long however before 
circumstances became so changed as to pro- 
duce a considerable extension and enlarge- 
ment of the limits within which the Episco- 
pal government and authority had been at 
first confined. For the Bishops who pre- 
sided in the cities were accustomed to send 



Episcopal Supremacy. 53 

out into the neighboring- towns and country 
adjacent, certain of their Presbyters for the 
purpose of making converts and establishing 
Churches therein; and it being of course 
deemed but fair and proper that the rural or 
village congregations, which were drawn 
together in this way, should continue under 
the guardianship and authority of the Prelate, 
by whose counsel and exertion they had been 
first brought to a knowledge of Christ and 
his Word, the Episcopal Sees gradually ex- 
tended into ecclesiastical provinces of varied 
extent, some greater, some less, to which the 
Greeks in after times gave the denomina- 
tion of dioceses. ' ' 

Thus, it appears that the rapid growth of 
the Church and multiplication of societies in 
and around every civic center, and as well as 
the custom from the earliest apostolic 
times, of regarding the apostle or Presbyter 
who was first in the community in point of 
time and labor, the chief among equals, was 
the next official step towards the supremacy 

of the Bishop. 

Next to territorial expan- 

doctrinal sion, the great Doctrinal 

controversy. Controversy which began in 

the latter part of the first 

century, and which was practically ended in 



54 The History of Episcopacy. 

the latter part of the second century, served 
to distinguish and elevate the Bishop as an 
officer above the Presbyter, by making the 
President of each Christian community the 
custodian of the "fides catholics, et apos- 
tolica" (the general belief of the Chrstian 
Church, as taught by the apostles). 

The first contact of Christianity, was 
with Genosticism whose leading champion 
was Philo, a learned Jewish Greek philoso- 
pher, whose birth was coincident with that 
of Christ; and whose philosophy grew up 
contemporaneously with — and I may say — 
within the pales of Judaism itself. 

Genosticism was a combination of Orien- 
tal theosophy and Platonic philosophy with 
Judaism, and also contained many elements 
of Christianity. Philo and his disciples be- 
lieved in God, but did not accept the divin- 
ity of Christ. With them the Old Testa- 
ment was an allegory. They believed that 
nothing was real, all was but the symbol of 
the unapparent. From these fundamental 
ideas or beliefs, the great Genostic system 
developed into many special systems, all of 
which sought either to adopt or absorb 
Christianity. 



Episcopal Supremacy. 55 

It was an age of paradoxes, of unsettled 
opinions and faiths. The Church as such, 
did not know what it believed, nor what to 
believe. It was a trying ordeal for Chris- 
tianity. 

But the trial raised a problem — a prob- 
lem which was not only to be fundamental 
in its bearing upon Christian belief, but 
upon the polity of the Church for all time to 
come. Amid this chaotic sea of philosophy 
and this nebulous world of belief, the prob- 
lem arose and surcharged with all of the el- 
oquence of multitudes of earnest souls seek- 
ing after truth, demanded an answer to the 
question, what shall we believe; what shall 
be the rule of faith; what shall be the basis 
of Christian union? It plead long and el- 
oquently for an answer, but for a time no 
answer came. At last the silence was bro- 
ken. It was the voice of Irenaeus the great- 
est theologian of the age. 

With all the strength of his master intel- 
lect, and force of his soul, he maintained 
that the Church had a belief which sought 
no compromise with Oriental theosophy or 
Platonic philosophy, but rested solely on the 
faith and teachings of the apostles. In 



56 The History of Episcopacy. 

other words he maintained that the fides 
apostolica — the belief which the apostles 
had taught — should be the fides catholic a 
— the general belief of the Christian Church. 

By reason of his eloquence and force of 
reasoning, it was not long until not only the 
Church in Gaul, accepted his teachings, but 
the Church in general. 

But the question was not yet settled. A 
concurrent question, equally weighty in im- 
portance, arose. How was the faith and 
teachings of the apostles to be known; and 
who were to be its expositors and conserva- 
tors? Under the Mosiac dispensation, the 
Rabbis were the custodians and the exposi- 
tors of divine truth. Guided as the apos- 
tles and their immediate followers were in 
the organic formation of the Christian 
Church, by certain laws and customs which 
had held sway under the Jewish economy, 
it was very natural that the Rabbinical 
idea would be incorporated here, that is to 
say, that inasmuch as the Presbyters had 
been taught by the apostles, and duly set 
apart by the imposition of their hands, to 
teach and govern, they were the logical cus- 
todians of the faith and teachings of the 



Episcopal Supremacy. 57 

Church on earth. But these Presbyters be- 
ing many in every church " community, there 
was the danger still of many "false doc- 
trines. ' ' The necessity for one rule of faith, 
for unity of teaching and belief was supreme, 
and this in the light of past experiences and 
of concurrent events could only be had by a 
single Presbyter in each church community, 
standing in relation to that community as 
the Rabbis did to the Rabbinical schools — - 
the custodians and expositors of divine truth. 
And the person thus chosen was very natu- 
rally the elder Presbyter or President of 
each local church community. 

This course seems not to have been fully 
approved of at first, but by the middle of 
the third century it was generally adopted 
throughout the Church : consequently, in the 
Clementines, says Dr. Hatch (Apostolic Or- 
ganization, p. 98), "For the first time, the 
president of the community is regarded in 
the light of the custodian of the rule of 
faith, in express distinction from the pres- 
byters who are intrusted only with that 
which is relative to their main function — 
the teaching of the maxims of Christianity. ' ' 
(Clementine IDpis. 365.) 



58 The History of Episcopacy. 

The supremacy of the Bish- 
orper and opric which grew out of the 

discipline. afore-mentioned conditions 

in the order of providence, 
seems to have received its final enthrone- 
ment in the necessity for order and disci- 
pline. Almost contemporaneously with the 
discussion of doctrine, arose the question of 
order and discipline growing out of the ques- 
tion of the proper distribution of church finan- 
ces among the poor, and of the restoration of 
the "lapsed." But of the latter more par- 
ticularly, under the Decian persecution which 
began during the middle of the third century, 
the most inhuman measures were adopted to 
destroy. ' "The sword, fire, wild beasts, hooks 
of steel, the wheel, red hot irons, chains and 
whatever else would inflict pain were brought 
into requisition." To avoid these fearful 
persecutions, many of the Christians fled to 
the deserts of Dgypt and other places of 
safety. After these barbarous persecutions 
were over, many of those who fled from per- 
secution, or renounced Christianity by wor- 
shipping at heathen altars, desired to return 
to the communion of the Church. 



Episcopal Supremacy. 59 

This raised a question — a question of dis- 
cipline, which the Church had not been 
called upon hitherto to meet. There were 
those in the Church who had stood the per- 
secution, who regarded their weaker breth- 
ren no longer fit members of Christ's body, 
in that they did not suffer persecution "for 
his name's sake," while there were Qthers 
who were disposed to look upon the ' ' lapsed ' ' 
with commiseration. 

At first the Church passed upon each in- 
dividual "lapsed" for readmission. Later, 
when persecution forbade the assembling of 
the whole body, the church officers acted as 
confessors for the Church collectively. It 
was not long however, until the cry of brib- 
ery, of corruption, and of illegal admissions 
were made against the confessors. This 
complaint led to the enactment of the rule 
by the Council of Aries, 314, A. D. (Clem- 
entine E)p. 26), "That presbyters and dea- 
cons should not readmit any into the Church 
without the concurrence of the Bishop. ' ' In 
many local Churches this rule was met with 
disfavor, but its re-enactment by the Span- 
ish Council of Dlvia; the Gallican Council 
of Orange; and the African Council of Car- 



60 The History of Episcopacy. 

thage, bore down in less than a century, all 
opposition, and the Bishop was officially su- 
preme in all matters of discipline. 

Retrospecting now, it seems clear, that 
the supremacy of the Bishop grew by force 
of circumstances, and growth or evolution 
was perfectly simple and natural. In New 
Testament times, Presbyters and Bishops 
were synonymous terms, though technically 
there was a shade of difference, the former 
denoted order, while the latter denoted of- 
fice, but in their usage as applied to the apos- 
tles, they were synonymous. A little later, 
by reason of the territorial expansion of the 
Church and its phenomenal growth in the 
West, where it came directly under the in- 
fluence of the civil government of Rome, the 
Presbyter presiding not only over his own 
local Church, but over all those in his com- 
munity by reason of seniority, was given the 
title, Bishop or Overseer, a title which was 
both accommodating and suggestive, in that 
it addressed itself to the heathen mind as 
well as to Jewish understanding. 

This assumption of authority led to a 
greater assumption of power. The metro- 
politan Bishop claimed superiority over all 



Episcopal Supremacy. 61 

the rural Bishops. And thus the assump- 
tion went on until Rome, the strongest civil 
center of all claimed superiority and juris- 
diction over all the world. This assumption 
of Rome, backed by its political influence 
and aided by such men as Leo I, Gregory I, 
and finally by Hilderbrand or Gregory VII, 
made its way until there was not only the 
assumption of the Pope of Rome over Bish- 
ops ; but also the assumption of a theocratic 
rule of the Pope over all nations of the 
world. 

Thus, I have mentioned certain providen- 
tial causes, educational forces, and influences 
which led up to a reformation in ecclesias- 
tical government during the second and 
third centuries, out of which was born a 
polity in keeping with the growth and ex- 
pansion of the Church, and the new condi- 
tions and civil government in which it found 
itself more and more a factor. 



CHAPTER VI. 

BROKEN LINKS IN THE ROMAN CHAIN OR 

THE NULLITY OF APOSTOLIC 

SUCCESSION. 

The Doctrine of Apostolic 
the doctrine Succession, briefly stated, is, 
stated. that Peter was the first 

Bishop of Rome, and that 
he was given by direct commission of our 
Lord, a primacy over the entire Church of 
Christ on earth; and that this primacy car- 
ried with it, besides honor and rank, direct 
and supreme jurisdiction over all the other 
apostles. In a word, it teaches that Peter 
was appointed Christ's Vicar upon earth, 
and that this vicarate was not given to him 
only, but that it was delegated to him for 
his life time, with power to delegate it to 
his successor; and that he did delegate said 
power to his successor and his successor to 
the next successor; and so there has come 
down to us through this infallible succession 
an unbroken chain of Bishops, upon whom 

this plenary power has rested. 
(62) 



Broken Links. 63 

Moreover this doctrine, exclusive and in- 
tolerant, in its nature, as it is bold and ar- 
rogant in its assumption, claims, by reason 
of what modern Roman theologians are 
pleased to call the ' ' Privilege of Peter, ' ' a 
complete monopoly upon divine grace and 
power requisite to a validly ordained minis- 
try; and hence discards all who are not sub- 
scribers to the faith of Popedom, as ' 'Schis- 
matics, "— "Aliens from the faith, " — "out 
of the appointed way to heaven' ' and such 
as are left to the "uncovenanted mercies 
of God?" 

To quote directly from the Canon Law of 
the Church of Rome, it is said "He that ac- 
knowledges not himself to be under the 
Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome is 
ordained of God to have primacy over all 
the world, is a heretic and cannot be saved, 
nor is of the flock of Christ. " The decrees 
of the Vatican Council in 1870 declares: 

1. "If anyone shall say that blessed Pe- 
ter, the apostle was not appointed by Christ 
the Lord, the Prince of all the apostles, and 
the visible head of the whole Church mili- 
tant; or that he received a primacy of honor 
only, and not directly or immediately one of 



64 The History of Episcopacy. 

true and proper jurisdiction from the same 
our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. ' ' 

2. "If any should say that it is not by 
the institution of Christ the Lord himself, 
or by divine right, that blessed Peter should 
have a perpetual line of succession in the 
primacy over the Church Universal, or that 
the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of 
blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be 
anathema. ' ' 

Such is a succinct statement of the doc- 
trine of Apostolic Succession. Now it is 
upon this assumptive claim of papal ordina- 
tions, reaching from the Petrine chair in 
Rome to the present Pope Leo XIII. , that 
papalist base their claim to divine primacy, 
and to which all must cling for salvation-, 
there being no other visible, valid means of 
grace. Mark you, we say assumptive claim, 
and this we mean with all that the language 
implies. 

For unless Peter's primacy can be proved 
by a clear and honest interpretation of the 
Scriptures, and every ordinal link in the 
chain from him down can be shown to be 
perfect and strong, interlinked each in the 
other, and this continuity, without a single 



Broken Links. 65 



break, substantiated by indisputable historic 
testimony; then the whole successional ar- 
gument must be seen to rest on a mere ec- 
clesiastical assumption, and the so-called 
chain of Apostolic Succession falls to pieces 
as a rope of sand. 

Romanists claim first 
WSBS^SbSSr of all the primacy of 

FROM THE SCRIPTURES. p^ Qn ^ grQUnd Qf 

divine authority, given by Christ in three 
distinct and specific commands. The first 
is the following: "And Jesus answered and 
said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- 
jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed 
it unto thee, but my Father which is in 
heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou 
art Peter and upon this rock I will build my 
church ; and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
vail against it. And I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and 
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be 
bound in heaven : and whatsover thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ' ' (St. 
Matt. 16:17-19.) Romanists maintain that 
this Scripture teaches exclusively that Peter 
was here referred to by our Lord, as the fu- 
ture official head of the Church, the founda- 



66 The History of Episcopacy. 

tion upon which the whole superstructure 
was to rest, and the source of all authority, 
both ecclesiastical and spiritual. 

But this is clearly a prejudiced interpre- 
tation. To get the indubitable meaning of 
Christ's language in this Scripture, it must 
be sought for in the light of the whole nar- 
rative, and all of the incidents and questions 
leading up to it. 

Studying it in this light, it is apparent at 
once that Christ was not after a person, but 
a confession of faith. Amid his waxing 
fame, many theories and opinions were afloat 
as to his personality. The purpose of Christ 
was to correct these false and misleading 
conceptions of his person and office by draw- 
ing from the apostles a confession; a con- 
fession which comprehended the God-man, 
and accepted him as the world's Christ and 
Redeemer; a confession which should stand 
forever as the basic foundation of his Church 
on earth. And in proof of this statement let 
the narrative stand in evidence. 

Beginning with the thirteenth verse of 
the chapter above cited, it is said that: 
4 'When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesa- 
rea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, 



Broken Links. 67 

Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, 
am? ? ' Mark you, the question was not ad- 
dressed to Peter individually but to the dis- 
ciples collectively, "and he asked his dis- 
ciples" all of them. "And they said, " that 
is they answer in common, "Some say that 
thou art John the Baptist; some Dlias; and 
others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. ' ' 
Having adroitly drawn from them a consen- 
sus of opinion respecting himself, he pressed 
the question upon them individually, not to 
Peter particularly, but to the entire broth- 
erhood of disciples. "He saith unto them, 
But whom say ye that I am? ' ' And Simon 
Peter replying for all of the disciples, "An- 
swered and said, Thou art the Christ, the 
Son of the living God. ' ' This confession of 
apostolic faith, voiced by Peter, and em- 
bracing as it did all of the elements and con- 
ditions requisite to salvation, was approved 
by Christ in the following remarkable dec- 
laration, "And Jesus answered and said 
unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; 
for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto 
thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 
And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter 
and upon this rock I will build my Church; 



68 The History of Episcopacy. 

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it. ' ' Seizing upon this commendation of Si- 
mon by our Lord, "Thou art Peter (petra 
rock), Romanists interpret it to mean, that 
he was thereby signalized, the corner stone 
of the Church. The true interpretation is to 
be found however in the Hebrew custom of 
giving significant names, not solely or even 
chiefly, to describe qualities in the person 
who bore them, but to commemorate truths 
in which they were concerned, and this two- 
fold purpose seems to have been in the mind 
of Christ, when he rechristened Simon. He 
simply meant to commend the appropriate- 
ness of his name, illustrative of his charac- 
ter and to commemorate in the apostolic com- 
pany the great truth uttered by him. And 
now if we will divorce the words, "Thou 
art Peter, " from the words, "and upon this 
rock I will build my church ' ' and get the true 
connection, which is, "Thou art rightly 
called Peter, ' ' we will have the divine ap- 
proval upon Peter's confession of faith; upon 
which Christ said, * ' I will build my church. ' ' 
It is upon this confession of faith alone that 
the Church must rest and nothing more. 



Broken Links. 69 

The next clause in this Scripture which de- 
mands our attention is the famous binding 
and loosing clause, "And I will give unto 
thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and 
whatsover thou shalt bind on earth, shall be 
bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shall 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. ' ' 
This clause, Romanists hold, teaches ex- 
pressly an individual endowment of special 
privileges to Peter. But this is claiming 
more than the Scripture warrants. If we 
will keep before our minds the fact, that the 
disciples were being addressed collectively 
and not individually we will observe that the 
binding and loosing power was not peculiar 
to Peter only, but to all of the disciples, as 
the context proves. 

Immediately after the Cesarea Philippi 
meeting, Jesus came to Capernaum, and 
lodged in the home of Simon, where he was 
called upon for tribute money. Peter was 
sent away to pay the same, and during his 
absence Christ conferred the same plenary 
power on the other disciples saying, 
'Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall 
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and 
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be 



76 The History of Episcopacy. 

loosed in heaven. " (Matt. 18:18.) And last- 
ly, after his resurrection ; in his parting bless- 
ing and final commission, we have the follow- 
ing: "Then said Jesus to them again, Peace 
be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, 
even so send I you. And when he had said 
this, he breathed on them, and said unto 
them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose 
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they 
are retained." (St. John 20:21-23.) Noth- 
ing can be clearer than the fact that these 
Scriptural passages prove beyond a shadow 
of doubt that this plenary power of bind- 
ing and loosing was not peculiar to Peter or 
any one of the apostles, but to all alike. 
This being true, the argument for Peter's 
primacy, so far as this Scripture is con- 
cerned, is absolutely groundless. 

Mark, the friend and amanuensis of Peter, 
having recorded nothing that would give 
strength to the primacy claim, we pass to 
the Gospel of St. Luke, in which we find the 
following: "And the Lord said, Simon, Si- 
mon, behold, Satan hath desired to have 
you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I 
have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: 



Broken Links. 71 

and when thou art converted, strengthen 
thy brethren. " (St. Luke 22:31, 32.) Lin- 
guists tell us that the Greek word for 
"you, " in the text, is plural in fact as well 
as in form, which makes it evident that all 
of the disciples stood in danger of Satan's 
sieve, Peter alone being the one whose faith 
would fail, and whose fall and denial is here 
foretold. 

Thus instead of this Scripture pointing 
out any particular sanctity of character 
or pre-eminence of authority in Peter over 
the other disciples, it actually puts him be- 
low the level of his colleagues, for he is in- 
formed of all of the apostlic number, he 
alone would fail to stand the test, and he is 
bidden, when " converted to strengthen his 
brethren," by reminding them of his own 
bitter and dangerous experience, lest any 
of them should fall away from their Master. 
This is confessedly the true interpretation 
of this Scripture; and since to strengthen 
by exhortation is in no sense akin to the act 
of exercising authority, this Scripture gives 
no support to the papal sovereign doctrine. 

The last important Scripture upon which 
popedom rests the primacy of Peter, is that 



72 The History of Episcopacy. 

found in the Gospel of St. John: "So when 
they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, 
Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more 
than these? He said unto him, Yea, Lord; 
thou knowest that I love thee. He saith 
unto him, Peed my lambs. He saith to him 
again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, 
lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, 
Lord; Thou knowest that I love thee. He 
saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith 
unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, 
lovest thou me? And he said unto him, 
Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest 
that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed 
my sheep." (St. John 21: 15-17.) This Scrip- 
ture, like its predecessors, it is maintained, 
clearly indicates a primacy in that, in Christ's 
threefold injunction to Peter to feed his 
lambs and sheep, he was made chief Shep- 
herd over the entire flock of Christ, the 
apostles included. But here likewise we are 
barred from giving credence to this theory 
by at least two insurmountable obstacles. 

First, instead of bestowing a primacy upon 
Peter, the language of Christ, simply indi- 
cated a restoration of the fallen disciple to 
his apostleship. Peter, as foretold in the 



Broken Links. 73 



previously quoted Scripture, had forsaken 
and denied his Lord in the hour of trial; and 
he had returned to the world. He, in whom 
they had trusted to redeem Israel, was now 
dead and entombed. Peter in company with 
other disciples had gone a fishing. In the 
gray dawn of the morning as they came 
from their fruitless toil, Jesus appeared on 
the shore of the sea of Tiberias, and after 
miraculously providing them with breakfast, 
Jesus said unto Peter who had openly and 
boldly denied him, " Simon, son of Jonas, 
lovest thou me more than these? ' ' That is 
more than these fishes laying in the net be- 
fore us, which language, interpreted in a 
broader sense, meant more than the world 
and its possessions to which you have turned 
from following after me; and Peter repent- 
ant at this gentle and God-like rebuke thrice 
confessed his supreme and abiding love for 
the Master, and was rewarded with forgive- 
ness and restoration to his apostleship with 
the thrice divine injunction, ' ' feed my sheep. ' ' 
Thus it appears that this Scriptural injunc- 
tion was in no sense primatical but restora- 
tive. 



74 The History of Episcopacy. 

Secondly: It in no sense conferred any 
special authority upon Peter over the other 
apostles as the context (John 21:17) ade- 
quately proves. "It is obvious that if Peter 
had received jurisdiction over John only a 
few moments before, his question was per- 
fectly legitimate and reasonable, and merit- 
ed a reply as being his concern, because af- 
fecting one for whom he had just been made 
responsible. But the answer he actually re- 
ceives can denote nothing short of John's 
entire independence, and the restriction of 
Peter's own commission to attend to his 
own specific and limited share of apostolic 
work, with no right of control over John. ' ' 
(Petrine Claims, Chap. I, p. 9.) 

Thus from a legal standpoint of view, 
these favorite Roman passages of Scripture 
give no warrant for the belief in an apos- 
tolic primacy. But to the contrary, they 
teach most emphatically that all of the apos- 
tles were coequal in power, holding alike 
the keys of authority and that Peter was 
not alone "the rock" upon which the 
Church was built; but that each of the 
apostles was a foundation stone, "Jesus 
Christ himself being the chief corner stone, ' ' 
(B}ph. 2:20) 



Broken Links. 75 

The story of Peter's 

broken link num. journey to Rome and 

ber one. j^ s twenty -five years' 

Bishopric in that city 
is the first link in the chain of Holy Succes- 
sion. But transcendently important as this 
fact is, or should be, if true; it is without 
the "thus saith the Lord. " Not a single 
passage of Scripture, either in the Gospels 
or in the Epistles can be found to support 
the fallacious claim. 

The only inspired evidence that can be 
brought to bear in its support, is the strained 
exegesis of I Peter 5:13. But this Scrip- 
ture is so ambiguous in its meaning that its 
evidence is wholly insufficient, being ex- 
plained and supported by no context. To 
the contrary, however, there are numerous 
passages of Scripture bearing upon Peter's 
ministry and life which make it highly prob- 
able that Peter was never so much as at 
Rome. Ultramontanism holds that Peter came 
to Rome in the second year of the reign of the 
Emperor Claudius, 43 A. D., to withstand 
Simon Magus. But according to Luke, in 
Acts 12:3, 4, he is found living in Jerusalem, 
where he was cast in prison by Herod 



76 The History of Episcopacy. ^ 

Agrippa in the last year of his reign 44 A. 
D., two years after the time he is said to 
have assumed control of the episcopal See 
of Rome. In Acts 15:6, Luke mentions Pe- 
ter as still residing at Jerusalem and this, 
at least seven years after, for while some 
chronologists claim that this was in the ninth 
year of Claudius, others hold that it was in 
the eleventh. A few years later and fifteen 
years from the time he is said to have taken 
up his residence in the Imperial City, when 
Paul went up to Jerusalem to report his 
work among the Gentiles, he found Peter, 
still residing in the Holy City, a pillar of 
the Church (Gal. 2:9), who afterward fol- 
lowed or accompanied him to Antioch (Gal. 
2:11). This together with the silence main- 
tained by the Apostle Paul, as to any men- 
tion of Peter's work or name in connection 
with the city of Rome, in both his Dpistles 
in 58 A. D., and in his subsequent visit in 63 
A. D., five years later, is scarcely to be ac- 
counted for on any other theory, than that 
he was not there. Por it seems reasonable, 
had Peter been living in Rome, when Paul 
wrote his famous letter expressing a desire 
to see them (Rom 1:11), or when he person- 



Broken Links. 77 



ally visited that city in after years, he would 
have made some mention of the distinguished 
apostle; especially so, since he, in his Epis- 
tle, mentioned the names of thirty-five 
prominent persons to whom he sent special 
salutations. 

But up until this time, 63 A. D. , there is no 
proof whatever that Peter had any individ- 
ual or official relations with the church at 
Rome, or that the Romans had ever seen or 
heard of him except such as might have been 
in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 
2:10), when he preached the inaugural ser- 
mon of the coming kingdom. 

It is the testimony of Patristic writers 
confirmed by the ablest Continental, British 
and American theologians, that the story of 
Peter's bishopric at Rome, had its origin 
with Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, in the 
early part of the second century. He was 
the author of the tradition, and E)usebius, 
the Father of Church History, using such 
expressions as "It is reported, ' ' "It is said, " 
etc. , refers to it as a doubtful tradition. P. 
Turrentin, one of the most learned of mod- 
ern writers and who shows great familiarity 
with Patristic lore, says (Turrentin Opera, 



78 The History of Episcopacy. 

Vol. Ill, p. 148), "The unanimity of the an- 
cients, who firmly held that Peter lived and 
died at Rome, has absolutely no weight, for 
this story has its origin in Papias, Bishop of 
Hierapolita, in Phrygia, who, according to 
the testimony of Dusebius, was not merely 
of mediocre talents, ignorant, and credulous, 
but deceptive and inclined to fables; who 
has handed down many incredible and unre- 
corded stories, more like fables than relia- 
ble histories. (Uuseb. Lib. Ill, Ch. 3.) He was 
also the author of the story of the Chiliasts. 
He was the first to write that Peter had 
been at Rome. After him followed Hegesip- 
pus, Irenaeus, Clemens, Alexander and others, 
and so their statement is valueless, accord- 
ing to the testimony of the same Eusebius, 
who stated that the majority of the ecclesi- 
atical writers, especially Irenaeus, gave oc- 
casion for the same error, ' and continues 
he, l ' Since therefore, the credibility of this 
same writer is so doubtful in other matters, 
how can we have our assent when there are 
so many arguments from the Scriptures, 
which have been taken up in order, to the 
contrary? ' ' 



Broken Links. 79 

To use the language of Kurtz in his 
Church History, page 65, "This whole leg- 
end about Peter's bishopric at Rome — ac- 
cording to Eusebius from the year 42 to 67, 
is derived from the heretical, pseudo— epi- 
graphic, Clementine's Recognitions — an au- 
thority entirely untrustworthy. ' ' Thus the 
first link in the chain under a critical test 
of its strength, instead of bearing undispu- 
table evidence of having been forged in the 
furnace of truth, and welded by the ham- 
mer of authentic history, appears to be 
nothing more than a traditional fallacy. 

According to the the- 
ory of Holy Succession- 

BKOKEN LINK DUMBER j.^ each p^fl mUst 

of necessity transmit per- 
sonally, the grace, office 
and plenary power received "by the hands 
of the apostles" to his successor. But 
where is the proof of this? Echo answers 
"Where?" If the hands of Peter directly 
forged and welded the ordinal link next to 
him, or in other words, if he personally ap- 
pointed and ordained his successor to the 
papal chair, this orderly and apostolic meth- 
od has certainly not been kept up. And so 



80 The History of Episcopacy. 

far forth as history will show, that there 
has been any breach or diversion from the 
divinely appointed method, then the chain 
will be broken and the succession invalidated. 
Let us see. There has been, at least, 
seven different modes employed in creating 
"popes" and all differing from the Apos- 
tolic: 

1. After Peter, they were created by the 
nomination of the Bishop and the election of 
priests and people. This was the custom 
practiced during the second and third centu- 
ries. 

2. By the nomination of the emperor or 
empress, as they were moved by political 
impulse and elected by the vote of the Bish- 
op. ' 'In the fourth century, Emperor Con- 
stantine nominated profligated heathen 
youth and men accused of flagrant crimes 
to supplant venerable Bishops whose posi- 
tions they secured by bribery and political 
intrigue.' ' (See Methodist Episcopacy Valid, 
p. 33.) 

3. By appointment of the emperor alone. 
Bishop Burnett says that for three hundred 
years, "The popes were made upon the 
mandates of the emperor, ' ' and that many 



Broken Links. 



of them were anti-popes, schismatics, and 
monsters of iniquity. Instances are to be 
found in the imperial action in regards to 
Boniface I. (Baron. Ann. 419), and also 
Pope John. (Petrine Claims, p. 309.) 

4. By prostitution, Baronius says that 
popes were intruded into office by powerful 
men and women, and that the papal chair 
was frequently the price of prostitution. 
(See Baron. Ann. 897, IV.; 908, VI., VII. ; 
912, VIII.) Mosheim says that, "Theodo- 
ra, a very lewd woman, who controlled all 
things at Rome, made John X. , who was 
Archbishop of Ravenna, succeed to the pa- 
pal chair. For at this time, nothing was 
conducted regularly at Rome, but everything 
was carried by bribery or violence. ' ' (Mos- 
heim Vol. II., p. 130.) 

5. By Cardinals, a new order of ecclesias- 
tics made by the decree of Pope Nicholas II. 
in his Lateran Synod at Rome, in 1059, (Pet- 
rine Claims, p. 330), and unheard of for the 
first one thousand years after Christ. 

6. By the appointment of Popes in gener- 
al council, instances: Sutri, Pisa, Constance 
and Basil. In 1046, Henry of Germany — 
head of the "Holy Roman iDmpire was called 



82 The History of Episcopacy. 

into Italy, to put an end to the reign of vice 
and disorder at Rome. He caused the three 
rival popes to be deposed by a synod at Su- 
tri, and a German prelate, Suidger, Bishop 
of Bamberg, to be appointed under the name 
of Clement II. , by whom he was crowned 
Dmperor, and after Clements death, Henry 
raised to the Papacy three German popes in 
succession. This was a departure from all 
previous customs. ' ' 

7. By reverting to the Nicholas method 
of Popes making Cardinals, and Cardinals 
making Popes. The present method is, that 
the Pope shall appoint various persons to 
the College of Cardinals, and on the death 
of the Pope, the College shall meet and elect 
one of their number the successor of the 
dead Pope. 

And now what do these facts logically 
prove? Simply this: that the diverting from 
the Petrine method of * ' appointing, ' ' and 
the adoption of the illegitimate and hetero- 
geneous methods of pontifical elections, has 
broken the apostolic chain and invalidated 
the succession. Hence, there was not and 
could not be a personal transmission of the 
grace, office and power apostolic, "The il- 



Broken Links. 



legitimacy of the methods, the intervening 
spaces, as to time, in welding the consecu- 
tive links, which were often months and 
sometimes years, " made it impossible. (De- 
bate on the Roman Catholic Religion, p. 135.) 
To say nothing of the often simple civil in- 
duction of Popes into the chair of Peter, 
many of whom were laymen, never having 
received Christian orders, makes the doc- 
trine of the transmission of sacerdotal power 
from Peter down through a tactual succes- 
sion of Pontiffs absolutely preposterous. 

As well might the present Sultan of Tur- 
key tell me that Solomon's Mosque, built by 
Mohammedan devotees, is the Holy Temple 
Solomon built on Mount £ion, as to tell me 
there has been a personal transmission of the 
mysterious apostolic grace, through this 
broken and corrupt line of Roman Pontiffs. 
It is not only preposterous; it is ridiculously 
absurd. 

The illegitimacy and irregularities of pon- 
tifical creations, from apostolic times to the 
present, is the second broken link. 



84 The History of Episcopacjr. 

The numerous schisms 
broken link num- of popedom is the next 

BER THREE. fact W J 1 J C J 1 p r0ve S the 

fallacy of Apostolic Suc- 
cession. From the Novatian Schisms 251 
A. D. to the Council of Constance in 1414; 
there were twenty-nine schisms in the Ro- 
man Catholic Church, and some of them 
lasting for quite half a century. For the 
last one thousand years, there have been over 
one hundred Bishops or Popes of Rome, and 
during this period, there have been, at thir- 
teen different times, two or even more 
claimants or pretenders to the pontifical 
chair at Rome. Just think of it! Two or 
more claimants for the same office at the 
same time, when legitimately and divinely as 
they themselves assert, there can be but one 
person. 

It is worthy of note, in view of this fact, 
that in Roman polity three things are essen- 
tial to the pontifical claim: Legal Flection, 
Canonical Induction and Actual possession of 
the Papal Chair. But for centuries legal 
election and canonical induction have been 
lost to view, and the possession of the 
chair by whatever means, fair or foul, has 
been the only warrant of authority. 



Broken Links. 85 

Under the Roman Empire, it did not mat- 
ter by what method Caesar obtained the 
purple; whether he made his way to the 
throne of the world by inheritance, by elec- 
tion, by successful rebellion, or by murder, 
so long as he could maintain himself on this 
dangerous throne, his legal rights were un- 
impeachable. Such seems to have been the 
policy of the papality. To obtain posses- 
sion of the Holy Chair, was often more prized 
than the throne of an empire. Every con- 
ceivable diabolism was resorted to, in- 
trigues, bribery, simony and even murder. 

Hildebrand, known as Gregory VII. , it is 
said, poisoned, at least, half a dozen Popes, 
and then without election, thrust himself 
into the popedom. Powell says, "Frequently 
the most cunning, the most powerful, the most 
warlike, the most wicked of them succeeded 
in deposing his less cunning, less powerful, 
less warlike, less wicked, opponent. ' ' (Apos- 
tolic Succession, p. 225.) Now while it 
must be admitted that it is often very diffi- 
cult to distinguish between Rome political 
and ecclesiastical, still it must be remembered 
that according to an axiom in Latin theology 
and Canon Law, "a Pope to be the legiti- 



86 The History of Episcopacjr. 

mate successor of Peter, must be Pope de 
jure as well as Pope de facto; and that 
unlawful possession of the papacy, confers 
no valid rights whatever. (Petrine Claims, 
p. 306.) It is plain, therefore, that where 
several had assumed the office at the same 
time all could not be genuine and legitimate 
claimants to the same chair. Only one 
could be the true and lawful successor. But 
whether one or many of those who have set 
on the papal throne in the last one thousand 
years, were legitimate successors of Peter, 
no man living or dead can tell. But we do 
know from the testimony of the most ancient 
and learned, the most just and revered, that 
the schismatic confusion of a thousand 
years, bred rivalries; created usurpers, and 
cast a cloud of doubt over the whole canoni- 
cate, and thus rendered abortive the trans- 
mission of the Apostolic grace, schismatic 
doubts being the effectual estoppel. 

For Bellarmine, one of the highest Latin 
authorities expressly declares in Decree 
Council, Lib. II. Chap. 19, Section XIX., "A 
doubtful Pope is accounted no Pope. And 
so no legitimate Pope, no Apostolic succes- 
sion. ' ' And this being confessedly so, they 



Broken Links. 87 

themselves being judges, the chain yields to 
the strain of ' ' Schisms ' ' and breaks again. 

In a number of Canons, 

broken link num- acknowledged by both 
berfour. Romanists and Angli- 

cans, it is declared that 
none can be true ministers of Christ, who 
are immoral, heretical, schismatical, or non- 
aged. This being true, having the warrant 
of Scripture, the fact which we now adduce 
is to wit : that the Holy chair often filled with 
the vilest monsters of iniquity, is evidence 
de facto that if there had been such a thing 
otherwise, as an indefeasible transmission 
of apostolic virtue and power, it was es- 
topped in the lives of those ungodly succes- 
sors of the Galilean Fisherman, yea, suc- 
cessors, who uncalled, and unappointed of 
God, or any ecclesiastical regulation, intrud- 
ed themselves into the Holy office. 

From the founding of the Roman hierarchy 
up until the beginning of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, there had been in all, two hundred and 
sixty-two possessors or occupants of the pa- 
pal chair. Prideaux, a learned historian and 
a devout churchman, who made a careful 
analysis and summary of this venerable list 



88 The History of Episcopacy. 

of "holy ones," numbered among* them, 
4 ' thirty-eight usurping Nimrods, forty lux- 
* urious Sodomites, forty Egyptian Magicians, 
forty-one devouring Abaddons, twenty in- 
curable Babylonians. ' ' (Introduction for 
Reading Histories, p. 67.) But let me in- 
stance a few of the many holy fathers 
through whom the succession has come. 

Pope Vigilius waded to the pontifical 
chair through the blood of his predecessor. 
Pope Pelagius was forced to clear himself 
from the suspicion of having murdered this 
same Vigilius, by swearing his innocence 
upon the Crucifix and the Gospels. Pope 
Alexander VI. , infamous for his debauchery 
in keeping a Roman strumpet, Vanozia, by 
whom he had many children, and then lived 
in incest with his daughter Lucretia, pro- 
cured the popedom by simony. Joan, a wom- 
an disguised as a man, was elected and 
confirmed as Pope John VIII. , and held the 
popedom one year, one month and four days 
after her confirmation, dying as the result 
of the shame which had overtaken her by 
those about her. 

Since the Reformation, this story has 
been discredited by a number of Protestant 



Broken Links. 89 

historians, but Prideaux affirms that there 
are fifty authorities in the Roman Catholic 
Church, who place upon it their seal of ap- 
proval. We must therefore account Popess 
Joan (John VIII.) as filling her place in the 
chain, and so recognize her as Pope, there 
being no other way to shake hands with Pe- 
ter than through her succession. Pope 
Stephen, says Howell, "was the most wick- 
ed of men. ' ' Pope John IX. , son of Sergius 
III. , by the strumpet Marozia, was designa- 
ted "a devil" and was accounted the vilest 
and blackest monster that ever defiled the 
Roman pontificate. 

But space forbids these individual men- 
tionings of this monstrous list of pontifical 
holiness. Suffice it to say that Genbard in 
his "Chronicles," 904 A. D., says "For 
nearly 150 years, about fifty Popes deserted 
wholly the virtue of their predecessors, be- 
ing Apostate rather than "Apostolic," and 
Baronius, eight years later (912 A. D.), con- 
firms this statement by exclaiming, "What 
is then the face of the whole Roman Church ! 
How exceedingly foul it is! When most sor- 
did and abandoned women ruled at Rome; 
at whose will the Sees were changed; Bish- 



90 The History of Episcopacy. 

ops were presented, and what is horrid to 
hear and unutterable : false Pontiffs, the par- 
amours of these women, were intruded into 
the chair of Peter and made false Popes; 
for who can say that they could be lawful 
Popes who were intruded by such harlots?" 
(Baronius Annals, 912 A. D.) 

Now it is clear from the facts set forth, 
that if Apostolic Succession was ever a 
reality, it was made nugatory in the lives of 
these ungodly Pontiffs, whose judges were 
themselves Romanists. The words of their 
mouths and the meditations of their hearts, 
as set forth in the Council Decrees of Chalce- 
don, 415; of Nicasa (the second), 787; of 
Constantinople 681 and 869; of Rome 679 
and 963; of Sutri 1046; of Pisa 1409; of 
Constance 1415; all declare in bold and 
anathematic language that all Intrusionists, 
Heretics, Simonists, Immoralists and Schis- 
matics were usurpers and false Popes ; and 
prove at the same time the illogicalness of 
their claims. 

For if they were usurpers and false Popes in 
the pontificate, as they acknowledge, then 
it is proof de facto that the succession was 
invalidated, for the same councils declared 



Broken Links. 9 1 

that usurpers, schismatics, etc., are not 
true ministers of Christ, nor successors of 
the Blessed Peter. And if "not true minis- 
ters of Christ, nor successors of the Blessed 
Peter, ' ' then what becomes of the Holy suc- 
cession during their false pontificates, or in 
other words, during the interregnum when 
there was no true Pope? 

The answer is clear; if Apostolic Succes- 
sion was ever an entity, it was invalidated. 
But aside from the legal phase of this ques- 
tion, the idea that apostolic power, virtue 
and grace, so essential to ministerial orders, 
could pass through such foul, bloody and 
iniquitous hands, is not only repugnant to 
the dictates of common sense; but contrary 
to the teachings of our Lord and the spirit 
of Christianity. So holy a religion is Chris- 
tianity, that its fundamental principle laid 
down in God's Word, is that those who ad- 
minister before Him must be holy; and that 
He recognizes the ministrations of such only 
as meet the requirements of the third chap- 
ter of First Timothy and the first chapter 
of Titus. The false Pontiffs before men- 
tioned, wanting in the several qualifications 
therein specified, and falling without the 



92 The History of Episcopacy. 

scope of ministerial characterization, are ir- 
revocably debarred by the Scriptures, and 
by the administration of the Holy Spirit 
from having "neither part nor lot in this 
matter" — The Christian Ministry — their 
hearts being "not right in the sight of God. ' ' 
(Acts 8:21.) In examining the lives of the 
Popes from Gregory the Great to Leo X. , 
scarcely one can be found who gave evidence 
of a renewed heart much less a divine call. 
How then could these men impart spirit- 
ual blessings, spiritual authority, and the 
Holy Ghost to others, when many of them 
did not so much as "Know whether there 
be any Holy Ghost? ' ' The answer is plain. 
These false Pontiffs were no more the pos- 
sessors of apostolic power and virtue, than 
Simon Magus, being by nature incapacitated 
to receive it. But why should I multiply 
words in proving what is already plain? In 
the language of Dr. Adam Clark, "It is idle 
to employ time in proving that there is no 
such thing as an uninterrupted succession of 
this kind. It does not exist, it never did 
exist; it is a silly fable, invented by ecclesi- 
astical tyrants, and supported by clerical 
coxcombs, ' ' 



CHAPTER VII. 

ANGLICANISM OR "THE HISTORIC EPISCO- 
PATE." 

That transcendently important religious 
movement which began in the fourteenth cen- 
tury, known as the ' ' Reformation, ' ' reached 
its culminative point in the sixteenth century 
under Henry VIII. At the refusal of Pope 
Clement VII. , to grant King Henry a divorce 
from his lawfully wedded wife Catherine, 
that he might marry the more youthful and 
beautiful Anne Boleyn, King Henry follow- 
ing the advice of his Prime Minister, Thomas 
Cranmer, rebelled against the Pope and de- 
clared himself to be ' ' The only supreme head 
of the Church of England on earth. ' ' Thus 
was the beginning of that exclusive and in- 
tolerant hierarchy known as the established 
Church of England. This radical move upon 
the part of Henry VIII., and the Roman 
Communion in England in discarding papal 
authority caused their excommunication by 
the Church of Rome. 

(93) 



94 The History of Episcopacy. 

But the Established Church had behind it 
the powerful sentiment of religious liberty, 
and the political influence of the throne, and 
was therefore destined to live and become a 
powerful factor in the moral reformation, 
and in the spiritual redemption of Christian- 
ity from the throes of Roman dominancy and 
depravity. And such it has been, for to be 
true to history it must be conceded, that 
while Henry " meant it not so," it must be 
said of it, as Joseph said of the unrighteous 
conduct of his brethren, ' ' God meant it unto 
good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to 
save much people alive. ' ' 

This unique child of Providence — Angli- 
canism, by which term we mean the Estab- 
lished Church of England and its offshoot, the 
Protestant Episcopal Church, which has done 
much to lift the moral standard of Christian- 
ity and to preserve vital religion upon the 
face of the earth, holds the same untenable 
and fallacious position on questions of di- 
vine orders, and office, as the Roman Catho- 
lic Church. And since many Methodist 
writers not wholly free from the influence of 
sacerdotalism have striven ingeniously to 
lay claims to whatever validity there might 



The Historic Episcopate. 95 

be in historic orders through Wesley, a 
priest of the Established Church of England 
or through White, of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, it is our purpose here to show 
without any reference to its ecclesiastical 
recognition by the Christian world in general 
or its divine approval of the Most High, 
that its claims to "The Historic Episco- 
pate, ' J which is but another name for apos- 
tolical succession, is as groundless and unde- 
sirable by the Church that recognizes a di- 
rect and divine call from on high, as the fab- 
ulous, claims of the Roman Church* 

What of the orders of this Church? What 
of their origin? Henry VIII. , as I have said, 
having rebelled against papal Rome, and dis- 
carded the right of the Pope to exercise any 
authority either civilly or ecclesiastically 
within his kingdom, was in turn, with his 
rebellious communicants excommunicated. 
Granting it for argument's sake, that the 
Church of Rome was the possessor of that 
mystical grace called Apostolic Succession, 
and that the founders of the Established 
Church of England, Cranmer, Ridley, Par- 
ker, Hodgkins and Miles Cloverdale, had re- 
ceived this so-called succession when they 



96 The History of Episcopacy. 

were first ordained priests in the Church of 
Rome, had they power to transmit this gift, 
this succession to the Church of England, or 
any other Church after their excommunica- 
tion? The answer is verily, no. 

If as we say, it be conceded 
the succession that the f ounders of t he Es- 
tablished Church were the 
possessors of the succession when first or- 
dained priests in the Church of Rome, it 
was lost to them in their withdrawal and 
excommunication. The very act of their se- 
cession of necessity invalidated all derived 
authority. 

It is a universally admitted principle in 
ecclesiastical law, that no one who with- 
draws from or is excommunicated by a 
Church, can exercise by the authority of that 
Church any right, power, privilege or author- 
ity, received while a member of that Church. 
The moment such a one withdraws, or is 
excommunicated, that moment his orders be- 
come invalid, and he is henceforth to that 
communion nothing more than a publican 
and a heathen. 

Such the Reformers became to the com- 
munion of Rome. All of their rights, 



The Historic Episcopate. 



powers and privileges of ordination were ab- 
rogated in their excommunication. ' ' Illus- 
trations of this principle, ' ' says the Rev. R. 
J. Cooke, D. D. (The Historic Episcopate, 
p. 112), "may be found in every age of the 
Church, the Arian, Eutychian amd Donatist 
Bishops were all validly consecrated, but 
when they rebelled against the authorit} 7- 
which commissioned them and gave them 
jurisdiction, all their acts were declared 
null and void. They were no longer 
in the line of succession and could not 
transmit what they did not possess." In 
like manner continues our learned author, 
"When the founders of the English Church 
were deposed and excommunicated by the 
Church of Rome, of which they were origi- 
nally ministers, all sacerdotal power and ec- 
clesiastical authority of every character was 
drawn from them by the same power that 
first conferred it, and therefore, as a nec- 
essary consequence, the transmission of that 
power or authority and the continuity of the 
succession were de facto impossible. ' ' 

Moreover, it must be remembered that the 
Established Church regards the Roman 

Church as the true Church; its ordinations 

7 



98 The History of Episcopacj r . 

valid and its acts binding. On this theory 
therefore, the excommunication was valid 
and stands in full force against them until 
this day; having been recorded in heaven, 
and ratified by Christ as his own act, through 
the Pope's Anathema, he being Christ's vice- 
gerent on earth. (?) This being true, An- 
glicans cannot by any logical process of 
reasoning lay claim to a tactual relation 
with the Roman Church. 

The link was broken under Henry VIII., 
and they were cut off by Pope Paul III. , in 
1538 and left to the uncovenanted mercies of 
God. 

Granting still for the 

MATTHEW PARKER'S CON- i r ~ rcT11rn Arl + -ft^f 

secration schismatic. saxe or argument, tnat 

the Roman Catholic 
Church is the possessor of the mystical suc- 
cession, Anglicans cannot claim to be its le- 
gitimate recipients, from the fact Matthew 
Parker's consecration, the corner stone upon 
which all Anglican orders rest, was not ca- 
nonical, but schismatic. In other words, it 
was not according to the rules and by the 
authority of the Roman Catholic Church, 
nor any one who had ecclesiastic jurisdic- 
tion in the premises, but by the express or- 



The Historic Episcopate. 99 

der and authority of Queen Elizabeth grow- 
ing* out of a political exigency. 

King Henry VIII. , as we have seen, who 
was but a layman in the Church — and an im- 
pious one at that — proclaimed himself the 
head of the Church of England, by which act 
he cut off all ecclesiastical relation with 
Rome, thus necessitating a change of the 
constitution of the Church in its entirety, 
and making it the helpless child of the State. 
This assumption of ecclesiastical power in- 
vesting all authority in ecclesiastical mat- 
ters in the reigning sovereign, was confirmed 
by an act of Parliament in 1534. 

This supremacy act declared "That the 
King, our sovereign lord, his heirs and suc- 
cessors, kings of this realm, shall be the su- 
preme head in earth, of the Church of 
England called the Angelicana iDcclesia. ' ' 
(Fisher, History of the Reformation, p. 32.) 
By this act, the sovereign was given the 
power to commission men to preach, or to 
forbid the same; to appoint Bishops to Sees, 
or unbishop them at his pleasure. All dis- 
ciplinary and ecclesiastical authority was 
derived from the throne. 
L.ofC. 



ioo The History of Episcopacy. 

Prom the reign of Henry VIII, to Queen 
Mary, the Church was Anglo-Catholic, that 
is to say, it was part Protestant and part 
Roman Catholic, each element in the Church 
struggling incessantly for supremacy. This 
lasted for a quarter of a century, when 
Elizabeth, the daughter of Henry VIII, and 
Ann Boleyn came to the throne. This gifted 
woman being a Protestant at heart and im- 
bued with the spirit of progress, at once 
threw the weight of her influence toward 
the cause of the Reformation. Protestant- 
ism received an impetus, the constitutional 
enactment to which I have already referred, 
which gave Henry VIII, and Edward VI, 
ecclesiastical supremacy in all matters of 
Church discipline, was renewed under Eliza- . 
beth and remained statutorj^ in England un- 
til this day. 

The following is the text of the act of 
supremacy renewed under Elizabeth: "Such 
jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and 
pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, 
as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power 
or authority have heretofore been or may 
lawfully be, exercised or used for the visita- 
tion of the ecclesiastical state and persons, 



The Historic Episcopate. 101 

and for reformation, order and correction of 
the same, and of all manner of errors, here- 
sies, schisms, abuses, offenses, contempts 
and enormities, shall forever, by the author- 
ity of the present Parliament be united and 
annexed to the imperial crown of the realm, ' ' 
(Annals, p. 67.) 

By this supremacy act, it will be seen that 
all spiritual jurisdiction was invested in the 
crown. The ministers of the Gospel were 
dependent upon a call from the throne of 
England and not from God; they became 
mere court officials servants of the crown; 
they were not God-called and God-sent, but 
state-called and commissioned. 

' * The act of supremacy, ' ' says Dr. Cook 
(The Historic Episcopate, p, 29), "Also 
provided that all persons holding office under 
the crown civil, military or ecclesiastical, 
should take an oath acknowledging the roy- 
al supremacy. ■ ' By this requirement, every 
bond between the Roman Church and the 
Reform Church was broken. The hierarchy 
which Anglicans affirm had undoubted suc- 
cessions, was destroyed. In the whole king- 
dom there were twenty-four Episcopal and 
two arch-episcopal Sees. "The Sees of nine 



102 The History of Episcopacy, 

Bishops and one Archbishop were vacant. 
In July, 1559, the remaining bishops and 
Archbishops were summoned by the lords 
of Councils and ordered to take the oath; 
but, with the exception of Kitchin, Bishop 
of Llandaff, they all refused, and by the end 
of September they were all deprived of their 
Sees, by the High Court of Commission. In 
this manner, the Roman Sees were emptied 
of their Bishops — a mode quite as legal as 
that by which the bishops of Edward VI 
had been deprived in the preceding reign — 
and there now remained in all England no 
bishop, except Kitchin, who might lawfully 
exercise the functions of his office or who 
could with any assurance transmit the succes- 
sion. M (lb.) The refusal of the Roman Bish- 
ops to acknowledge allegiance to the crown 
of England, and the filling of the vacancy 
of the Arch Episcopal See of Canterbury, 
the most important in all England, led to 
the issuance of a mandate by her royal 
Highness, September 9, 1559, to Tonstal of 
Durham, Bourne of Bath, and Wells, Poole 
of Petersborough, and Kitchin of Llandaff, 
and to Doctors of Divinity, Barlow and 
Scorey, commanding them in the name of 



The Historic Episcopate. 103 

her sovereignty, to consecrate Matthew Par- 
ker, Archbishop of Canterbury. The Ro- 
man Bishops refused to adhere to the Queen's 
mandate; their refusal was based on a two- 
fold objection. They neither recognized 
Barlow and Scory as proper consecrators, 
nor the authority of the Queen in matters 
ecclesiastical. Elizabeth and the reformers 
were seriously embarrassed as the state pa- 
pers of that epoch-making period plainly 
show, at their failure to have the first epis- 
copal consecration under the new regime 
performed by regular and properly constitu- 
ted clergymen, having jurisdiction in such 
matters. By the supplying clause however, 
in the act of supremacy, the Queen was in- 
vested with the right, as the supreme head, 
of the Church of England, to enter the spir- 
itual realm, and to supply whatever was 
wanting in spiritual or ecclesiastical power 
to any person or persons ' * for the visitation 
of ecclesiastical state and persons and for 
reform. ' ' 

In accordance with this supplying clause 
in the act of supremacy, Elizabeth issued a 
second mandate, December 6, 1559, which 
reads, "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of 



104 The History of Episcopacy. 

England, of France and Ireland, Queen, De- 
fender of the Faith, etc., to the Reverend 
Fathers in Christ, Anthony, Bishop of Llan- 
daff, William Barlow, sometime Bishop of 
Bath, now elect of Chichester, John Scory, 
sometime Bishop of Chichester, now elect of 
Hereford, Miles Coverdale, sometime Bishop 
of Exeter, John, Suffragan of Bedford, John, 
Suffragan of Thetf ord, John Bale, Bishop of 
Ossory, (commanding them to consecrate 
Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury) — according to the form of the statutes 
in this behalf set forth and provided; sup- 
plying, nevertheless, by our supreme royal 
authority of our mere motion and certain 
knowledge whatever — (either in the thing to 
be done by you pursuant to our aforesaid 
mandate, or in you or any of you, your con- 
dition, state or power for the performance 
of the premises) — may or shall be wanting 
of those things which, either by the statutes 
of this realm or by the ecclesiastical laws 
are required, or are necessary on this behalf, 
the state of the times and the exigency of 
affairs rendering it necessary. ' ' 

In compliance with this royal mandate, on 
December 17, 1559, in the chapel at Llan- 



Th e His toric Episcopa. te. 1 05 

daft House, Matthew Parker was consecrat- 
ed Archbishop of Canterbury. Now it will 
be seen by the foregoing, that Matthew 
Parker's consecration was by no means ca- 
nonical, and could not convey the succession 
to the Church of England had there ever ex- 
isted such a thing in the Roman Catholic 
Church to transmit—from the fact his con- 
secration was ordered by no ecclesiastical 
body and performed by no one who had 
spiritual jurisdiction in the premises. 

The two absolute and essential require- 
ments, acknowledged so by all successionists, 
to convey a valid succession, were wanting, 
even Kitchin, the only Bishop left in all 
England withholding his hands. In the 
light of these facts, what was Matthew 
Parker's consecration but a schismatic con- 
secration? And if schismatic, then accord- 
ing to the theory of Romanists and Anglicans 
themselves, it was uncanonical, and if unca- 
nonical, then invalid, and if invalid, then 
void of the so-called Apostolic Succession. 

The truth is, the Anglican hierarchy orig- 
inated in civil power. ' ' It drew its life ' ' as 
FVoude says, "from Elizabeth's Throne." 
And how it was ever possible for the succes- 



106 The History of Episcopacy. 

sion to have come down to Anglicans through 
this civil medium, is beyond the power of our 
ability to comprehend. 

If it be true, with Dr. McGee (Apostolic 
Organism, p. 76), we are disposed to say 
' ' With those who fancy that they can se- 
cure an Apostolic Succession transmitted 
through a political line, we could not dis- 
pute, and readily recognize that much Chris- 
tian piety has proceeded through this line in 
spite of its secular character; but for 
ourselves, we have no use for a chain of 
Apostolic Succession which is hung on a po- 
litical hook driven into the wall by such a 
man as Henry VIII. ' ' 

If anything is clear in 
^ffiSM&iliSg^ 11111 - studying the motives 

AN AFTERTHOUGHT. ^ purpose Q f the re . 

formers in breaking faith with Rome, and or- 
ganizing the Established Church, it was 
that they might have a Church free from the 
blighting and corrupting influence of sac- 
erdotalism. It is true they took advantage 
of the rupture between Henry VIII and 
Pope Clement VII, to bring about this de- 
sired end, and were compelled thereby to 
countenance many of the King's popish the- 



The Historic Episcopate. 107 

ories, who was still a Roman Catholic in re- 
ligion. And while they were compelled also to 
adopt his unscriptttral civic theory of church 
government for the sake of having the sup- 
port of the throne against Romanism, in 
their hearts and inner conscience, they re- 
jected the priesthood and all of its vest- 
ments, which carried with it the rejection 
of the old doctrine of Apostolic Succession. 
All of the priestly vestments, the cap, gown, 
surplice, crucifix, etc. , the badges of popery 
were discarded as things indifferent. Reject- 
ing the doctrinal accretion of centuries, the 
mass and priesthood, and with it all the 
imaginary mystical power conferred in ordi- 
nation, and without which according to the 
teaching of Romanists, and the present teach- 
ing of Anglicans, themselves, there can be 
no valid ordination; and going back to the 
primeval truth, the pure Word of God, they 
sought to establish a Church on scriptural 
principles with primitive apostolic simplicity. 

The truth is, the founders of Anglicanism 
were as bitterly opposed to the so-called doc- 
trine of Apostolic Succession, as its latter 
day adherents are its zealous advocates. 
Cranmer, the Father of Anglican theology, 



1 08 Th e His torjr of Episcopa cy. 

and who more than an}^ other man in all 
England, gave direction to the spirit .of re- 
form, and the polity of the Established 
Church, did not so much as hint at succes- 
sion in his forty-two Articles of Religions. 
And these, it is admitted is the basis upon 
which all Anglican theology is built. He de- 
nied that there were three orders in the 
Christian ministry, and that Episcopal ordi- 
nation was considered essential to valid min- 
isterial functions. 

He maintained that his ecclesiastical pow- 
er as Bishop, was inherent only in the throne, 
and when brought to the stake with other 
denunciators of Romanism, said, ' ' as for the 
Pope, I denounce him as Christ's enemy and 
Anti-Christ with all his false doctrines." 
(Beacon Lights of History, Vol. Ill, p. 
281.) Bishop Jewel, whose Apology of the 
Church of England, and his no less famous 
work, the ' 'Defence of the Apolog}^, ' J which 
were regarded so valuable that they were 
ordered chained in the Cathedrals so that 
they might be read by the populace, and who 
was regarded the mouthpiece of the re- 
formers, attacked with learning and vigor 
the claims of the Roman Church to succes- 



The Historic Episcopate. 109 

sion. And maintaining himself strong in the 
righteousness of his argument, declared that 
the Established Church depended not on 
44 the validity of the orders of those, who 
having been ordained in the Roman Church, 
and became the founder of the Church of 
England." 

For says he, " If none of those ministers 
'nor of us, ' were left alive, yet the Church of 
England would not flee to Louvian for Ro- 
man orders, for the Church would have pow- 
er to institute its own orders, as, Tertul- 
lian saith, 'And we, being laymen, are we 
not priests? ' ' ' (Defence of Apology.) Bish- 
op Pilkington in his Confutation, after chron- 
icling a list of wicked popes, with their 
wretched abominations, exclaimed ' ' This is 
the godly succession * * . * * these be 
the successors and fathers * * * * Qod 
defend all good folks from all such doings. ' ' 
Bishop Whittaker in writing against the 
Romanists said, "Earth is, as it were, the 
soul of the succession, which faith being 
wanting, the naked succession of persons, is 
like a dead carcass without a soul. " The 
learned Dr. Eulke, in his controversy with a 
Roman, sarcastically retorted; "Again, with 



no Th e His tory of Episcopa cjr. 

all our hearts we defy, detest and spit at 
your stinking greasy anti-Christian orders/' 
Thus the Reformers and founders of the 
Established Church of England, not only 
disclaimed heirship to the mystical succes- 
sion, but denounced and derided it in the 
most vehement language as a mere figment 
of the fancy, belonging only to popedom. 

How the latter day Anglican adherents 
can with any show of seriousness preach the 
dogma, that the doctrine of "The Historic 
Episcopate, ' ' as now held by the Established 
Church of England and the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, were held by the Anglican 
father, is quite difficult for any one who has 
any regard for truthfulness of history to 
understand. 

The principles underlying the reforma- 
tion, the theory of church government as es- 
tablished by them, together with the teach- 
ing and practices of the fathers of Anglican- 
ism, all stand to prove, that the doctrine of 
Apostolic Succession was undreamed of at 
first. What then, how came it? It was 
simply an afterthought, the child of exigen- 
cy. "The first traces of the doctrine" says 
Hallam, an English historian, "are found 



The Historic Episcopate. 1 1 1 

about the end of the Elizabethan reign. " 
But why at this particular period? Namely, 
for the reason, that at this time, the ques- 
tion of Church polity was forced upon the 
Church by the Puritans, backed by the pow- 
erful Presby terial sentiment of the Reformed 
Churches of the continent. In the Estab- 
lished Church, from its incipiency, there 
were two elements, conservatives and radi- 
cals. The conservatives were that class 
who, while they did not countenance many 
things in the new regime, were willing to 
make the best of present conditions in 
hope of a gradual reformation. The radicals 
on the other hand, known as the Puritans, 
were persistant in their demands, that the 
Established Church should be rid of the last 
vistage of popedom. 

The controversy at first, says Dr. Fisher 
(History of Ref., p. 342), "had respect to 
the use of the vestments, especially the caps 
and surplice, and extended to other peculiari- 
ties of the ritual. The ground of the Puri- 
tan objection was that these things were 
identified in the popular mind with papal 
notions; with a particular priesthood, they 
were badges of popery, and for this reason 



ii2 The History of Episcopacy. 

should be discarded." Bishop Jewel, one 
of the brightest stars in the galaxy of re- 
formers in writing to Peter Martyr said, 
"Now that the full light of the Gospel has 
shone forth, the very vestiges of error must, 
as far as possible be removed together with 
the rubbish, and as the saying is, with the 
very dust. ' ' (April 28, 1559. ) 

By the end of the Elizabethan reign, the 
the battle between the Puritans and Angli- 
cans was fierce. The eloquent Hooper and 
Ridley, the brilliant Jewel and Cartwright, 
were irresistible in their demands for reli- 
gious liberty of conscience, and for simplic- 
ity of worship. Cartwright assailed the 
hierarchy, regarding Presbyterial orders 
only as scriptural and lawful. 

It was at this time when the Puritan sen- 
timent seemed destined, not only to shake 
the whole hierarchal system, but the throne 
of England itself; that Bancroft, the bitter 
opponent of Puritanism, came to the rescue 
of the Established Church with his Jure 
divino doctrine. He, for the first time in 
the history of the Established Church which 
had had an existence of more than half a 
century, asserted the divine right of the 



Th e His toric Episcopa te. 113 

Episcopacy. His learning and well known 
ability as a controversialist, won for him a 
continental hearing, and the favor of Eliza- 
beth and also that of James I, her successor. 

The political condition of England was 
ripe for the reception of such a dogma. In- 
ternal dissentions together with the threat- 
ening attitude of Rome, whose Spanish Ar- 
mada signified only too well her intention, 
all conspired to make this dogma, which 
promised so much as a unifier of the ecclesi- 
astical forces of England, (which after all 
was its political strength), the cardinal doc- 
trine of the Church. 

Hence on the death of Whitgif t, Bancroft 
was appointed by James I, Archbishop 
of Canterbury. This appointment carried 
with it the approval of the doctrine of Apos- 
tolic Succession which had so long served as 
the bulwark of papal power. The old Ro- 
man dogma had now the approval of i 'the 
Head of the Church of England" "and it 
became' ' says Dr. Blackburn, ' ' heresy to deny 
the doctrine, ' ' and so Bancroft passed into 
history i ' the father of Anglican High 
Churchism. " (History of the Christian 
Church, Blackburn, p. 525.) 



ti4 The History of Episcopacy. 

Now if these facts be true, and we assert 
they are upon the authority of the best 
English historians and the ablest continental 
writers, then the claim to the "Historic 
Episcopate ' ' as now held by the High Church- 
men is purely an afterthought; an arrogant 
assumption and a perversion of history. 
The fathers of Anglicanism had no more 
idea of founding a Church on the doctrine of 
Apostolic Succession, than the Quakers have 
of adopting High Churchism. The burden 
of their hearts and the effort for which they 
sacrificed their lives was that they might 
have a Church free from ritual and sacerdo- 
talism. And yet High Churchmen would 
have us believe that the Anglicanism of today 
is fundamentally the same in polity and doc- 
trine, as that instituted by the godly reform- 
ers. Using the language of Dr. Cook, "As 
well might Roman Catholic writers affirm the 
Roman Church of the present with its gor- 
geous ritual, intricate ceremonies, doctrines 
of masses and indulgencies, infallibility, ma- 
riolatry and hunger for imperialism, to be 
the same Church in doctrine, worship and 
ceremony, with that company of believers 
which gathered in the tenement houses on 



The Historic Episcopate, 1 15 

the banks of the Tiber to hear the Epistle 



of St. Paul to the Romans. 



1 1 



The logical conclusion to which this brief 
historic survey leads us, is, that if there ever 
existed or exists now such a thing in the Ro- 
man Catholic Church as Apostolic Succes- 
sion,— a thing which we deny — the Anglican 
Church, its Ishmael child, is not its posses- 
sor. The illegitimacy of its birth, the ab- 
rogating power of excommunication, togeth- 
er with the most avowed denunciations and 
denials of it to any claim to the dogma of Suc- 
cession, upon the part of the reformers and 
founders of the Established Church of Eng- 
land; to say nothing of Edward's Ordinal 
used from 1549 to 1662, — a period of one 
hundred and thirteen vears, in which the 
mystical transmittible doctrine was not 
known, — and moreover to say nothing of 
the recognition of Presbyterian order as 
valid by the Established Church until the 
change in the Edward's Ordinal in 1662, is 
absolute proof we say, that the Established 
Church of England and the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, its offshoot, never did and does 
not now possess the mysterious papal priv- 
ilege. (?) In consequence of which Angli- 



ii 6 The History of Episcopacy. 

canism possesses nothing in her mystical 
hierarchy touching the validity of orders 
and office, which is not the lawful heritage 
of an evangelical ministry. 

We have now passed over the pages of 
fifteen hundred years of sacred history, and 
we have without prejudice, carefully and 
technically studied the same, and the con- 
clusion to which our investigation leads us 
is, there never has been in the Christian 
Church, any succession, other than the suc- 
cession of Apostolic faith and doctrine. 
And the only warrant and seal of a valid 
ministry, is a direct and divine call from on 
high. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

THE INSTITUTION OF OUR MINISTRY, OR 
THE ORDINATION OP BISHOP ALLEN. 

Is our ministry a valid one? Does it possess^ 
all of the divine elements and powers which 
properly belong* to the scripturally constituted 
ministry? In a word, is our denominational 
Church a part of the true Church of God; 
against which Christ said the gates of hell 
should not prevail? The Church, as such 
needs no defense at my hands. Its phenomi- 
nal success in the past, the great and good 
men who tread her courts, the sanctified 
thousands who kneel at her communion, and 
the hundreds of thousands who rejoice in 
the grace of God vouchsafed to them 
through her evangelical ministry, stand in 
proof of its validity, and of the divine ap- 
proval of the Most High. 

But while this is true, ' 'Thereis, "as Bishop 
Turner says, "a historic prestige that man- 
kind will ordinarily look for about a Chris- 
tian Church or denomination. ' ' And it is for 

(117) 



n8 The History of Episcopacy. 

the purpose of setting forth this "historic 
prestige ' ' and thus arming the student with 
truth that he may be always ready to give 
an intelligent answer to him that asketh, as 
to the origin, orders and office of our minis- 
try; that we here postulate certain organic 
Church principles inherent in every true 
Christian organism. 

The Church of God is composed of two 
general divisions: the ministry and the laity. 
The Church is not only a "congregation of 
faithful men, M but a "congregation of faith- 
ful men in which the pure word of God is 
preached, and the sacraments duly adminis- 
tered, " and to this end it must set apart a 
divinely called ministry. And, mark 
you, we say it must set apart a divinety 
called ministry, for the ministry must not 
only have the Divine Call, but have the au- 
thorization of the Church, before one can be 
accounted an accredited minister of the 
Gospel. The work of the ministry is ini- 
tially between Christ and the minister; but 
ordination is between the Church and the 
minister, and until it recognizes the "Di- 
vine Call, ' ' and places its ordinal seal there- 
on, the "called" cannot be said to be duly 



The Ordination of Allen. 119 

qualified. This interdependence of ministe- 
rial and lay elements to a valid Church or- 
ganism is clearly set forth in the organic 
acts of the apostles. 

In Acts 14: 23, we read, "And when they 
had ordained them elders in every church, 
and had prayed with fasting, they com- 
mended them to the Lord, on whom they 
believed." That these ordinations took 
place consonant with the organization of 
the believers into societies they had won 
through preaching, is evident from the lan- 
guage of the 21st and 22nd verses of this 
same chapter. (See also Tit. 1:5.) 

But all of this presupposes a "Divine 
Call" — in other words an inward impression 
and conviction by the Holy Ghost, of the 
duty of preaching the Gospel and an irre- 
sistible impulse thereto. A "Divine Call," 
is an essential prerequisite to a valid minis- 
try. Some there have been who have dared 
to enter the ministry as one who would 
choose a profession, and by some sort of an 
ecclesiastical arrangement, have assayed to 
call themselves ministers of Christ. But 
"Though hands of Bishops, Archbishops 
and Popes may have been imposed suffi- 



I20 The History of Episcopacjr. 

cient in number to thatch a cathedral, ' ' such 
persons without a direct and ' ' Divine Call ' 
from on high, were assuredly not members 
of Christ's Holy Priesthood. 

InHeb. 5: 4, it is said, "no man taketh 
this honour unto himself, but he that is 
called of God, as was Aaron. ' ' And Paul 
declared under the conviction that a dispen- 
sation of the Gospel was committed unto 
him, that "necessity is laid upon me; yea, 
woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel !" 
(1 Cor. 9:16.) 

But while the fact of the call makes it im- 
perative upon the "called" to preach the 
Gospel, the fact of necessitated authorization 
makes it his duty only upon the condition 
that the Church, in recognizing* the proper 
"gifts, graces and usefulness," gives by 
some public authorative declaration, its ordi- 
nal approbation. If it be said that this 
makes the Church the ordainer, then we 
have reached our point. FW all ecclesias- 
tical power is invested in the Church and it 
alone gives validity to the "call." Says 
Dr. McGee (Apostolic Organism, p. 146), 
"The beginning of ecclesiastical power, is 
illustrated by the first ecclesiastical meeting 



The Ordination of Allen. 121 

after the Ascension of Christ, as recorded 
in Acts 1: 15, 16, in which the whole 
hundred and twenty, ' ' probably the entire 
number of the disciples of Christ in and 
about Jerusalem participated. Thus, also, 
in the election of the seven (Acts. 6 : 1-7), 
the aggregate body assembled, the disciples 
and the apostles both acting their part. 
And again the procedure recorded in Acts 
13 : 1-3 while not describing, perhaps an 
ordination in the common usage of the 
word, yet with the foregoing, indicates how 
authority is derived from the body of be- 
lievers. 

Hence, it is the Church that ordains; how- 
ever while through its constituted method, 
whether aggregated or delegated, the Church 
may designate upon whom it will confer au- 
thority to act in a ministerial capacity, and 
may act legislatively and judicially, yet it 
cannot conveniently, indeed not possibly 
act executively; therefore it must have 
a constituted agent, representative, or 
executive officer, who not by inherent pre- 
rogatives, but by the authority of the 
Church, shall perform the interesting, sig- 
nificant and important ordination act for it. 



122 The History of Episcopacy. 

It is the Church that ordains. "Thus 
from the Scriptures it seems clear that the 
constituting power of the ministry is in- 
herent in the Church — The Church recog- 
nizing the ' Divine Call' evidenced in ' gifts, 
graces and usefulness, ' ' ' as originating with 
the Iyord Jesus himself; licenses or ordains 
the "Called of God" and sends him forth an 
accredited and duly qualified minister of the 
Gospel all in the name of the Great Head of 
the Church, who is the source of all power 
and authority in his Kingdom. 

Pursuant to this Apostolic procedure here- 
in outlined, the ecclesiastical compact, known 
as the African Methodist Episcopal Church 
in General Council Assembled, proceeded 
to constitute a ministry by electing 
and ordaining Richard Allen, Bishop. 

In the "Introductory" of the A. M. U. 
Discipline, it is said, "The preachers and 
members of our Church having become a 
distinct body of people, by reason of separa- 
tion from our brethren of the Methodist 
Dpiscopal Church, found it necessary at 
their first General Conference in April, 1816, 
to elect one from their own body, who was 
adequate to be set apart in holy orders to 



The Ordination of Allen. 123 

superintend the connection that was formed. 
The Rev. Richard Allen, being* seventeen 
years an ordained preacher by the Rev, Bish- 
op Asbury, of the Methodist episcopal 
Church, was unanimously elected to fill that 
office; and on the eleventh day of April, 1816, 
the Rev. Richard Allen, was solemnly set 
apart for the Episcopal office, by prayer and 
the imposition of the hands of five regular 
ordained ministers, one of whom, Absalom 
Jones, was a priest in the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, who was then and continued 
in good standing under the Diocese of the 
Right Rev. Bishop White, of Pennsylvania, 
at which time the General Conference, in 
Philadelphia, did unanimously receive the 
said Richard Allen, as their Bishop, being 
fully satisfied with the validity of his Epis- 
copal ordination." 

The question now arises: 
THE tVeact. tof "Was this a valid ordina- 
tion?" We answer on the 
basis of the scriptural principles, already 
herein outlined, it was perfectly legitimate 
and valid; all of the constitutional pre- 
requisites or Apostolic requirements being 
present in both the ordained and ordainer. 



124 The History of Episcopacy. 

First: As to the qualification of the 
ordained. 

(a) Rev. Richard Allen filled up the 
measure of the scriptural requirements. (I. 
Tim. 3:1-8; Titus 1:6-8.) He was a good, 
wise and faithful Christian man. 

(b) He was * 'divinely called. " As an evi- 
dence of which, his ordination as Deacon by 
Bishop Asbury, seventeen years previous, 
stands in proof. 

(c) He was elected. The record of these 
"organic acts" informs us that, "The Rev. 
Richard Allen being seventeen years an or- 
dained preacher by the Rev. Bishop Asbury, 
of the Methodist Bpiscopal Church, was 
unanimously elected to fill that office" (Bish- 
opric); and this, "on the eleventh day of 
April, 1816. ' ' The strength of all Moderate 
Kpiscopacy is "election.' This conceded 
with the foregoing qualifications, the valid- 
ity of the ordinal act, so far as Richard 
Allen, personally, was concerned, is be}^ond 
question. 

Secondly: As to the qualif cation of 
the ordainer — The Church. 

(a) As to the power inherent. It was as 
we have already observed, a properly organ- 



The Ordination of Allen. 125 

ized association of Christian believers into a 
covenated compact, on purely scriptural 
principles— -a Church with primary and ab- 
solute ecclesiastical power to ordain or set 
apart a ministry, either collectively or by 
delegated authority. As a Church, the 
power of ordination was inherent. 

Writing- to Cyprian, FWmilian says (See 
Ante-Nicean Library, American Edition, p. 
392), "All power and grace, are established 
in the Church, where the Elders preside, who 
possess the power both of baptizing and of 
imposition of hands and of ordaining." 
And Cyprian (lb., p. 371) says, "The Bish- 
op shall be chosen in the presence of the peo- 
ple, who have most fully known the life of 
each one as respects his habitual conduct. 
And this also we see was done by you in the 
ordination of our colleague Sabinus, so that 
by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, 
and by the sentence of the bishops who had 
assembled in their presence and who had 
written letters to you concerning him, the 
episcopate was conferred upon him. ' ' 

Augustine, held that the power of the keys 
were inherent in the Church, that is, the keys 
of ordination, and the keys of jurisdiction* 



126 The History of Episcopacy. 

And with him all ancient authorities agree. 
In the British Quarterly Review (Jan., 1877), 
an article on the " Priesthood in the light 
of the New Testament, ff appeared; in which 
the learned writer quotes the Views of an 
eminent authority which we here make our 
own. He remarked that, "Totatus, " Bishop 
of Avila in his great commentary, says, 
' 'iTor the power of a prelate does not take 
its origin from itself, but from the church 
by means of the election it makes of him. 
The church that chose him, gave him that 
jurisdiction; it received it from nobody after 
its having once received it from Jesus 
Christ. The church has the keys originally 
and virtually, and whenever she gives them 
to a prelate, she does not give them 
to him after the manner that she has them, 
to wit: originally and virtually, but she gives 
them to him only as to use." Thus, the 
African Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
strict conformity to Apostolic principles, 
and the practice of the Christain Church 
from earliest historic times, out of itself, 
quickened by the Holy Ghost, called Rich- 
ard Allen, who belonged to it vitally; and 
who was likewise inwardly quickened by the 



The Ordination of Allen. 127 

Holy Spirit, to its ministry, and this it did on 
the authority of the power inherent in itself, 
received originally and immediately from 
Christ as an organic member of His mys- 
tical body. 

(b) As to the Agencies employed. 
Were the ordainers of Richard Allen proper 
persons to perform the ordinal act? In 
other words, had they the proper ecclesiasti- 
cal qualification and authority? That they 
were duly qualified, is evident. 

They were duly qualified in that they 
were clothed with ministerial authority to 
act for and in behalf of the Church — the 
associated compact — and the power of ordi- 
nation being inherent in the Church by 
reason of its apostolicity, it had the power 
to confer upon whom it would the authority 
to perform the Ordination Act, just as in 
the case of the Church at Antioch when the 
"Holy Ghost" said, "Separate me Barna- 
bas and Saul for the work whereunto I have 
called them." 

The Church acted through Simeon, Iyucius 
and Manaen, who, though they were not 
apostles acted ministerially for the Church, 
the Church conferring upon them the power to 



128 The History of Episcopacy. 

act representatively for it. And here we are 
free to say, had none of the ordainers of 
Richard Allen been in order, his ordina- 
tion would have been just as valid as though 
he had been ordained by the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, or the Pope of Rome. FW they 
were duly qualified, not because of any par- 
ticular ministerial orders the ordainers may 
have posseSvSed, but because of the fact that 
they were chosen representatively and clothed 
with ministerial authority to act for and in 
behalf of the Church collectively. Their 
act was valid because they acted representa- 
tively for the Church. 

(c) As to the element of necessity. 
The doctrine of genuine necessity has long 
been regarded a valid plea in justification of 
ordination by a Presbyter or even for the re- 
institution of a ministry de novo. . This 
belief is supported by the practice of the 
Primative Church. 

Jerome, who was perfectly versed in the 
traditions and customs of the early Church, 
lays it down as a historic fact, that though 
there were many episcopates in the Alexan- 
drian Church, "the presbyters always called 
one by themselves, and placed in a higher 



The Ordination of Allen, 129 

rank, bishop, just as an army may constitute 
its general, or deacons may elect one of 
themselves whom they know to be diligent, 
and call him Archdeacon. ' ' (I. Epistle to 
Evagnius. ) 

Augustine says, "And it is base to call a 
pronotary, or archdeacon, a judge, for in 
Alexandria, and through the whole of Egypt 
the presbyter consecrates if the bishop is 
absent. ' ' (Questions 191. ) And to this tes- 
timony Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, 
Eusebius, Cyprian, Eirmilian, Hilary the 
Deacon, Chrysostoni and Theodret, with 
many other patristic writers all assent. In 
addition to this array of primitive testimo- 
nies in support of the doctrine of necessity, 
the history of the Reformed Churches of 
Denmark, and of Sweden, of the Church of 
England, of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church, and in fact, of the entire spirit and 
sweep of Protestantism stand in evidence. 
The learned Bishop Burnett in his exposi- 
tion on the XXIII Article of Religion of the 
Church of England says, "Einally, if a com- 
pany of Christians find the public worship 
of God where they live to be so defiled ttiat 



130 The History of Episcopacy. 

they cannot with a good conscience join in 
it, and if they do not know of any place to 
which they can conveniently go where they 
may worship God purely and in a regular 
way — if, I say, such a body, finding some 
that have been ordained, though to the lower 
functions, should submit itself entirely to their 
conduct, or, finding none of those should by 
common consent desire some of their own 
number to minister to them in holy things, 
and should upon that beginning grow up to 
a regulated constitution, though we are 
very sure that this is quite out of all rule, 
and could not be done without a very great 
sin, unless the necessity were great and ap- 
parent, yet if the necessity is real and 
not feigned, this is not condemned or an- 
nulled by the Article ; for when this grows 
to a constitution, and when it was begun by 
the consent of a body who are supposed to 
have an authority in such an extraordinary 
case, whatever some hotter spirits have 
thought of this since that time, yet we are 
very sure that not only those who penned 
the Articles, but the body of this Church for 
above half an age after, did, notwithstand- 
ing" tfeesfe irregularities, acknowledge the 



The Ordination of Allen. 131 

foreign Churches so constituted to be true 
Churches as to all the essentials of a Church. ' ■ 
Bishop Hooker, an eminent authority on 
Ecclesiastical Order in this same Church, 
said, "There may be sometimes very just 
and sufficient reasons to allow ordination 
without a bishop. The whole church 
visible being the true original subject 
of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed 
any other than bishops alone to ordain. 
Howbeit, as the ordinary cause is ordinary 
in all things to be observed, so it may be, in 
some cases, not unnecessary that we decline 
from the ordinary ways. 

Men may be extraordinarily, yet allow- 
ably in two ways, admitted into spiritual 
functions in the Church. One is when God 
himself doth of himself raise up a wa}^; 
another, when the exigency of neces- 
sity doth constrain to leave the usual ways 
of the Church, * * * * * when the Church 
must needs have some ordained, and neither 
hath nor can have possible a bishop to or- 
dain; in case of such necessity the ordinary 
institution of God hath given oftentimes, 
and may give, place. ' ' (E)ccl. Polity, Book 
VIII, chap. XIX.) 



132 The History of Episcopacy. 

In the Rev. John Wesley's letter to the 
Christmas Conference of 1784, setting forth 
the grounds of necessity for the ordination 
of Dr. Coke, and through him the institu- 
tion of a ministry to supply ' ' these poor 
sheep in the Wilderness," he says: "Lord 
King's account of the primitive Church con- 
vinced me many years ago that bishops and 
presbyters are the same order and have con- 
sequently the same right to ordain. For 
many years I have been importuned, from 
time to time, to exercise this right by or- 
daining part of our traveling preachers. 
But I have still refused, not only for peace' 
sake, but because I was determined as little as 
possible to violate the established order of the 
national Church to which I belong. But 
the case is widely different between England 
and North America. Here there are bish- 
ops who have a legal jurisdiction. In 
America there are none, neither any parish 
minister; so that for some hundreds of miles 
together, there are none either to baptize or to 
administer the Lord's Supper. Here, there- 
fore, my scruples are at an end, and I conceive 
mj^self at full liberty, as I violate no order 
and invade no man's right by appointing 



The Ordination of Allen. 133 

and sending laborers into the harvest." 
But for fear I burden the reader with quo- 
tations, I forbear. Sufficient testimony is here 
adduced to prove the power of the Church 
to ordain by the hands of a Presbyter, or to 
reconstitute a ministry where genuine ne- 
cessity makes this duty clear. 

The question now arises, was the ordinal 
act of the A. M. E. Church the logical re- 
sult of an exigency? In other words, was 
the ordination of Richard Allen justified on 
the principle of genuine necessity? We 
answer, yes. The Reformed Churches of 
Denmark and Sweden, the Established 
Church of England, the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, and the Prostestant Episcopal 
Church, never had more justifiable grounds 
for breaking faith with their old commun- 
ions than did the members of color of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in 1816. (1) The 
spirit of race prejudice engendered by color 
and condition of servitude, had made them 
unwelcome members in the Methodist com- 
munion. To quote from the Historic Pre- 
face, A. M. E. Book of Dicipline, it is 
affirmed that, "In 1787, the colored people 
belonging to the Methodist Society in Phila- 



134 The History of Episcopacy. 

delphia, convened together, in order to take 
under consideration the evils, under which 
they labored, arising from the unkind treat- 
ment of their white brethren, who consider- 
ed them a nuisance in the house of worship; 
and even pulled them off their knees while in 
the act of prayer, and ordered them to the 
backseats. For these and various other 
acts of unchristian conduct, they con- 
sidered it their duty to devise a plan 
in order to build a house of their own, 
to worship God under their own vine 
and fig tree/' That their action was per- 
fectly justifiable on the grounds of unaccept- 
ability and unchristian discrimination here- 
in affirmed, must be apparent to all who be- 
lieve in "Unity and Fellowship" as the 
basis principles of Church life and organic 
union. 

This cardinal principle of Christian broth- 
erhood, was discarded by their white 
brethren and they were unceremoniously 
given to understand that they were not 
wanted. In consequence of which, "they 
considered it their duty to devise a plan in 
order to build a house of their own to wor- 
ship God under their own vine and fig tree. ' ' 



The Ordination of Allen. 135 

It was a case of necessity absolute and ap- 
parent. 

(2) They were neglected and often with- 
out pastoral care, and the means of grace. 
If the Hellenistic Christian of Apostolic 
times were justified in their complaint of the 
neglect of their widows "in the daily minis- 
tration;" (Acts 6: 1) to the extent that 
the Deaconate, a new order in the Christian 
ministry was instituted to supply that want; 
and if John Wesley the illustrious founder 
of Methodism was justified in instituting a 
ministry through the ordination of Dr. 
Coke, for his poor sheep in the wilderness, 
neglected and without the means of grace; 
then this body of Christians which had al- 
ready become an organic compact, were 
equally justified in the institution of a minis- 
try through the ordination of Richard Allen, 
on the same principle aforestated: to feed 
and administer to this particular spiritually 
destituted and neglected African flock. 
We say equally justified from the fact 
that the white Dlders who had their spirit- 
ual oversight, had for quite thirty years seri- 
ously neglected them, and this neglect and 
indifference to their spiritual welfare had 



136 Th e His tory of Episcopa. cy. 

grown with the growing race prejudice of 
the times until finally they were neglected 
all together. 

If it be said that the white Elders did not 
from sheer indifference neglect them, but be- 
cause of their refusal to reward the servant 
for his hire, did so, then we answer that our 
argument still holds good; for their refusal to 
pay certain stipulated salaries demanded by 
the trustees of St. George's Church and the 
Academy, was based upon the same principle 
of neglect. Richard Allen in his life, ex- 
perience, etc., says, ' 'The elder supplied us, 
preaching five times in a year, for two hun- 
dred dollars. Finding that they supplied us so 
seldom, the trustees of Bethel Church passed 
a resolution that they would pay but one 
hundred dollars a year as the elder only 
preached five times in a )^ear for us: they 
called for the money ; we paid him twenty-five 
dollars a quarter, but he being dissatisfied re- 
turned the money and would not have it un- 
less we paid him fifty dollars. The trus- 
tees concluded it was enough for five ser- 
mons and said they would pay no more. 
The elder of St. George's was determined to 
preach for us no more, unless we gave him 



The Ordination of Allen. 137 

two hundred dollars, and we were left alone 
forupwardsof one year. " Again it is said, "at 
length the preachers and stewards belong- 
ing to the Academy proposed serving us on 
the same terms that we offered to the St. 
George's preacher, and they preached for us 
better than twelve months, and then de- 
manded $150.00 per year: this not being 
complied with, they declined preaching for 
us, and we were once more left to ourselves; 
an edict was passed by the elders, that 
if any local preacher should serve us, he 
should be expelled from the connection. 
John Dmory, then elder of the Academy, 
published a circular letter, in which we 
were disowned by the Methodist. ' ' And in 
this, I submit it. The doctrine of necessity 
was never more apparent; ostracized, mal- 
treated, neglected, and finally disowned, 
their duty was clear. The institution of a 
ministry to secure unto themselves the 
means of grace was the only way opened to 
them. It was the voice of necessity. In 
answer to which, the Church set apart one 
of their members to minister in holy things. 

Thus the A. M. E). Church standing upon 
the impregnable authority of Apostolic prec- 



138 



The History of Episcopacy. 



edents and principles not only felt itself 
duly qualified, but likewise justified in insti- 
tuting a ministry by prayer, election and 
holy hands. And such is its warrant of 
Ecclesiastical authority today. 



CHAPTER IX. 

AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 

By Episcopacy is meant the government 
of Bishops in the Church. It exists in two 
cardinal forms, with sundry subordinate 
modifications, and may be classified under 
the following general heads: (1) Diocesan 
Episcopacy, and (2) Itinerant Episcopacy. 
By Diocesan Episcopacy is meant that form 
of Church government known in the Protes- 
tant Episcopal Church in America, the Es- 
tablished Church of England, and the Ro- 
man Catholic Church. In these Churches, 
each Bishop is in charge of a certain num- 
ber of churches, or a specified territory 
called a Diocese. 

The advocates of this form of Church pol- 
ity, claim that "God has established an or- 
der of men as ministers of his Church, who 
have exclusive right to the ministerial func- 
tions of that Church, who perpetuate, and 
who are arranged in three orders by divine 
appointment, the supreme power within a 

(139) 



140 The History of Episcopacy. 

given jurisdiction being vested in one man, 
who, when once raised to his episcopal pre- 
rogatives, becomes invested by a divine 
right for life, with exclusive powers to ad- 
mit to membership in the Church by the 
right of confirmation, and creates, and com- 
missions all ministers of the Gospel for the 
entire circuit of his episcopate. ' ' This is, 
in short, Diocesan Episcopacy. 

Itinerant Episcopacy is 
»™opjSt. that form of Church gov- 
ernment known in Meth- 
odism, in which Bishops itinerate and exer- 
cise a general and concurrent government 
over all the preachers and Churches through- 
out the denominational bounds. 

This form of Episcopal government finds 
its origin in the third restrictive article 
of the Constitution, adopted by the General 
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church in 1808, in the following language, 
viz. : ' i They (the General Conference) — 
shall not change, or alter any part or rule of 
our government so as to do away with epis- 
copacy, or destroy the plan of our itinerant 
general superintendency. ' ' While it is true 
that the embryo idea of an Itinerant Epis- 



African Methodist Episcopacy. 141 

copacy had its rise with the birth of Ameri- 
can Methodism, in the general superinten- 
dency of the work by Messrs. Asbury, Coke, 
and Rankin, tinder Mr. Wesley, still it never 
became a fixture in Methodism until the 
adoption of the Restrictive Rules, by the 
Delegated General Conference of 1808, which 
provided for and made inviolable ' ' The plan 
of our itinerant general superintendency. ' ' 
Such is the Episcopacy of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. 

But what of the 

RELATION OF AFRICAN METHODIST TT^Wrw^^Tr ^-P +V10 

episcopacy to episcopal iypiscopacy 01 tne 

methodism. African Methodist 

Episcopal Church? And what historic 
relation does it sustain to Episcopal Method- 
ism? 

"The roots of the present' \ it has been 
said, ' ' lie deep in the past, and nothing in 
the past is dead to the man who would learn 
how the present comes to be what it is. " 
It has been further stated, ' ' when we under- 
stand how anything has become what it 
is, we understand its history. Indeed, its 
history is the process of becoming what it 
is and the record of this process constitutes 
its recorded history. ' \ 



142 The History of Episcopacy. 

4 'The roots of the present," of the Epis- 
copacy of the African Methodist Episcopal 
Church lie deep in the soil of the Third Re- 
strictive Rule of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. Upon the organization of the Af- 
rican Methodist Episcopal Church in 1816, 
eight years after the Methodist Episcopal 
Church adopted its Constitution known as 
The Restrictive Rules, the African Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, adopted for its gov- 
ernment, the Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, with the same Restric- 
tive Rules unchanged. 

By this act The Restrictive Rules be- 
came to the African Methodist Episcopal 
Church what they were to the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church — its Constitution. But while 
the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church with the said Restrictive Rules 
therein, did become the rule and govern- 
ment of the African Methodist Episcopal 
Church, it was not binding, as yet, any fur- 
ther than it was the pleasure of the Elder 
ship of the Church, having never been rati- 
fied by delegated authorit}^, and was subject 
to change or annulment at any time. 

Eor fifty-two years, covering t&e. period 



African Methodist Episcopacy. 143 

from 1816 to 1868, our system of govern- 
ment, including its plan of general superin- 
tendency, was in ecclesiastical jeopardy. 

During this time, it had passed through 
the ordeal of thirteen General Conferences, 
any one of which could have changed or 
abolished it ad libitum. However, the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1868, composed of 
thoughtful and Godly men, many of whom 
had carefully observed our plan of work 
and its results for more than half a century, 
and who were fully satisfied with the prin- 
ciples and utility of the system: and being 
desirous to perpetuate sacredly and inviola- 
bly, the doctrine, moral discipline, and gov- 
ernment of the Church, and especially to 
conserve and perpetuate the Episcopacy of 
the Church, as an Itinerant general superin- 
tendency; as through such superintendency 
the General Conference would be able to ex- 
ecute its rules and regulations, and carry the 
whole system, of our Itinerant ministry into 
complete effect, did in conventional capacity, 
institute a delegated General Conference, 
thereby transferring to, and vesting in the 
then created body, all the power which the 
whole body o£ Elders possessed, to, make 



144 The History of Episcopacy. 

rules and regulations for the African Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, with certain speci- 
fied exceptions embraced in the Restrictive 
Rules. 

This epoch-making General Conference of 
1868, in order to preserve sacred and invio- 
late the government of the Fathers, did fur- 
ther by Constitutional enactment ratify the 
Restrictive Rules of 1808, with slight changes 
as to numerical position and verbiage, the 
spirit and genius remaining the same. 

And upon this bed rock, known as the Second 
Restrictive Rule in the book of Discipline of 
the African Methodist Episcopal Church, in 
almost the identical language of 1808, the 
constitutionality of our Episcopacy rests. 

But is our Episcopacy truly Itinerant- de 
facto, or is it simply a modified form of Dio- 
cesan Episcopacy? Does not the localizing 
of our Bishops serve to subvert the spirit 
of the Second Restrictive Rule, so as to ' 'do 
away the general Superintendency?' , We 
answer, no. Our Episcopacy was not born 
of Diocesan Episcopacy but of Itinerant Epis- 
copacy, Ours' is to all intents and purposes 
a General Superintendency. The only differ- 
ence between^our Episcopacy and the Episco- 



African Methodist Episcopacy. 145 

pacy of other episcopal Methodisms, is, in 
the plan. The Episcopacy of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church is general and has an an- 
nual rotation , while that of the African 
Methodist Church is also general, but has 
a quadrennial rotation; but so far as con- 
current power and authority over the entire 
Church are concerned, they are inherent in 
our Episcopacy. 

In the book of Discipline, under the head 
of ' i Duties of Bishops, ' ' Articles 12 and 13, 
it is said, "He (the Bishop) shall travel at 
large through his district and visit every 
circuit and station and oversee the spiritual 
and temporal business of the societies in his 
district.' ' "He shall whenever the officers 
of any Church call him and neceesity requires 
him, visit any Episcopal District and act 
alone, in the absence of its Bishop or con- 
jointly with him in all cases in which the 
interest of the connection demands his 
service. ' ' 

Suffice it to say, that the general scope of 
Episcopal authority, herein vested in the 
Episcopacy, empowering any one Bishop to 
exercise his Episcopal functions singly or con- 

jointly in any and all parts of the general 

10 



146 The History of Episcopacy. 

Church, where the interest of the work de- 
mands his presence, has from the beginning 
been a cardinal feature of our government. 
It is not held, in the judgment of the African 
Methodist episcopal Church, that the local- 
izing of her Bishops for a quadrennium tends 
to subvert the genius of Episcopal Method- 
ism, or to do away with ' 'the general super- 
intendency. ' ' Thus the Episcopacy of Meth- 
odism, as it was in 1808, with every form of 
authorization and recognition, with every at- 
tribute of authority and responsibility, has 
been in the past and remains to this good 
day, the impregnable, Constitutional bulwark 
of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. 
And around which the entire structure of our 
government stands. 

The duties of Bishops are 
THE b?sh T oII. of to be found embodied in the 
word " Superintendent, " 
and this word is significant and means much 
in the Polity of Methodism. It is the ge- 
neric term in all our government, and the spe- 
cial duties prescribed and enjoined in the 
book of Discipline are subordinate thereto 
and describe and limit the sphere of its 
action. Superintendency is the act of su- 



African Methodist Episcopacjr. 147 

perintending; it is care and oversight for 
the purpose of directing- and with authority 
to direct. 

Among the duties enjoined upon a Bishop 
by the constitution of the Church, and which 
he may not omit or neglect except at the 
peril of forfeiting his official standing, are 
the following: (1) To preside in Conferences; 
(2) To chose and appoint the Presiding El- 
ders, and only such as are ' ' healthy, vigor- 
ous, and well able to preach and stand the 
hardships of continuous travel;' ' (3) To fix 
in conjunction with the Presiding Elders, 
all of the appointments of the preachers at 
the Annual Conferences and such too, only 
as the Church, by her own act may furnish 
for appointments; (4) To appoint Presidents, 
principals, and teachers to seminaries and 
colleges, controlled by the Connection, when 
requested to do so by the Annual Confer- 
ence ; (5) To appoint agents to labor for em- 
barrassed churches and literary institutions, 
when requested to do so by the Annual Con- 
ference; (6) To decide all questions of law 
that may arise in an Annual Conference, his 
decisions subject however to an appeal to 
the " Court of Triers of Appeals.' ' The 



148 The History of Episcopacy. 

application of the law being" with the An- 
nual Conference and from which any ag- 
grieved may appeal to the judicial confer- 
ence; (7) To change, receive and suspend 
preachers in the interval of the Annual Con- 
ference session, being governed in changing 
and receiving by the necessity of the case 
and suspending only as the Discipline may 
require, that is, after due examination and 
conviction before a committee of the peers of 
the accused; (8) To travel at large through 
his district and oversee the spiritual and 
temporal business of the societies; (9) To 
visit any Episcopal district, when called by 
the officers of the church, and the necessity 
is apparent, and act alone, in the absence of 
its Bishop or conjointly with him in all cases 
in which the interest of the Connection de- 
mands his services; (10) To see that every 
station, circuit and mission is pastored by 
a vigorous and acceptable pastor; (11) To re- 
move no preacher without his consent be- 
yond the bounds of his district, until he shall 
have given him at least a three months' no- 
tice, prior to the time appointed for his re- 
moval; (12) To accept the transfer of no 
preacher against whom there is a charge, 



African Methodist Episcopacy. 149 

till after the Conference shall have full time 
to examine his character and pass upon the 
same, without laying himself liable to judi- 
cial proceeding's, as per Discipline; 
(13) To give a form of certificate as per 
discipline, to every member of an Annual 
Conference, that he shall transfer from one 
conference to another; (14) To entertain all 
motions duly made and seconded in all 
church Conferences and general board meet- 
ings, when they do not conflict with posi- 
tive law; (15) To exercise his Episcopal 
office only, on the grounds that he travel at 
large throughout his district; (16) To see 
that all Conference funds are appropriated 
according to Discipline; (17) To ordain 
such as are elected to orders by Conferences, 
but no others; (18) To see that no woman 
is ordained to the deaconate or eldership in 
the African Methodist Episcopal Church; 
(19) To prepare annually a Year Book of 
African Methodism, to contain general 
knowledge and facts of our own and other 
Methodisms, also, it shall contain a con- 
densed form of resolutions and other mat- 
ters of interest, such as rulings and deci- 
sions of the Bishops on law, as may be set- 



150 The History of Episcopacy. 

tied upon by the House of Bishops, from 
time to time, for the good of the Church. 

These are the duties of the Bishops found 
in well established usages and in the organic 
law of the Church. Thus, it is seen that in 
all this specialization and enumeration of 
episcopal duties, the one word is " Superin- 
tendence" It is the duty of Bishops to 
oversee or superintend the spiritual and tem- 
poral interests of the Church. 

Bishops are the watchmen on the walls of 
our denominational £ion; the guardians of 
our polity and the custodians of our doc- 
trine. They fill a position which is not only 
one of great dignity, but also one of mighty 
responsibilities and onerous duties. To 
them is committed the care and govern- 
ment of all the churches. It is a great and 
unique power they hold. 

Among all men of earth, few are trusted as 
the Bishops of the African Methodist episco- 
pal Church. Few deal with interests of such 
magnitude, or stand where integrity of char- 
acter and practical wisdom are so essential. 
And yet be it said to the credit of our own 
Bishops and to the Bishops of our common 
Methodism in general, in the language of 



African Methodist Episcopacy. 151 

Dr. McGee, "Notwithstanding the high pre- 
rogatives of Methodist Bishops, from Coke 
and Asbury to the end of the list, there has 
never been one who has dishonored the 
Church, nor for whom she has had occasion 
to blush ; but by their fidelity, industry, wis- 
dom, courage and piety, in the administra- 
tion of the vast and evergrowing interest of 
the Church, they have not only called forth 
admiration for the genius of her institutions, 
but has demonstrated hers to be a real Apos- 
tolic episcopacy. Brrors of administration 
there doubtless have been, for infallibility 
is not claimed, as for the popedom by its ad- 
herents; nevertheless, such sagacity, disinter- 
estedness, and success have been unequaled 
in all churchmanship. ' ' 

And to this eloquent testimonial we may 
add, to the "Godly judgment ;" the self -conse- 
cration; the faithfulness; the vigorotts lead- 
ership of these generals of "the sacramental 
host;" these Holy sons of I^evi; these High 
Priests of our growing Israel, our world 
conquering Methodism owes its unbounded 
success. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDING ELDERSHIP. 

The idea of the Pre- 
TH the off 1 i N ce OF siding Eldership is found 

first of all in the office 
of the Chorepiscopos, or " Country bish- 
op," and dates back to the third century. 

The Chorepiscopi were " a class" of 
ministers ' ' between bishops and presbyters' ' 
who exercised their office under the direction 
of the City Bishop. They were required to 
oversee the work of the Church in the rural 
districts, the chief Presbyter or Bishop, 
seeing "The impossibility of careful over- 
sight of all the interests of a large diocese. ' ' 
(Shaff-Herzog.) 

In the Chorepiscopi of these early times, 
the embryo idea of the Office of the Presid- 
ing Eldership is to be found, and though not 
known by that name; it has existed de fac- 
to, in the Christian Church for the last sev- 
enteen centuries. 
(152) 



The Office, Presiding Eldership. 153 

This office was first introduced into Amer- 
ican Methodism in 1784. 

Says Dr. John, J. Tigert, i ' This office is 
not explicitly recognized in the Discipline of 
1784. Yet this is the epoch of its virtual 
creation. It came with the first ordinations, 
the first formal provisions for the adminis- 
tration of the Sacraments, and is, therefore, 
coeval with the organization of the Church. 
Thomas Ware has already told us how the 
ordination of sufficient Dlders at the Christ- 
mas Conference, ' to visit the quarterly 
meetings, and administer the ordinances, ' 
was the measure ' which gave rise to the of- 
fice of presiding elder among us. ' 

* 'Bishop Soule tells us how this office has 
been recognized from the beginning as the 
special deputy and representative of an ab- 
sent Bishop, and how he stood in the same 
relation to assistants which the general as- 
sistant had formerly occupied. In the ap- 
pointments of 1785, for the first time, the 
names of Willis, Ivy, Ellis, Reed, Matson, 
O'Kelly, Poster, Whatcoat, Boyer, Gill, 
Vasey , and Chew, some of whom were elected 
and ordained after the Christmas Confer- 
ence, are prefixed to groups of Circuits rang- 



154 The History of Episcopacy. 

ing from two to eight in number, while the 
title Elder is affixed to their names. 

' 'The almost invariable rule in the begin- 
ning, was that Elders were assigned to dis- 
tricts, or, rather to groups of Circuits not 
yet denominated by this name. This was 
the origin of this office, though the title 
" presiding elder" does not appear regularly 
in the minutes until as late as 1797. In the 
Discipline, it occurs first in 1792. 

"The first person to bear this title in the 
official records of the Church is William Mc- 
Kindree, whose district stands first in the 
appointments of 1797. Richard Whatcoat's 
district is the second. The title also occurs 
in the journal of the General Conference of 
1796." (Constitutional History of Ameri- 
can Episcopal Methodism, p. 213.) 

Bishops Coke and Asbury in their notes 
to the Discipline of 1796, say, ' ' And we be- 
lieve we can venture to assert, that there 
never has been an Episcopal Church of any 
great extent which has not had ruling or 
presiding elders, either expressly byname, 
as in the Apostolic Churches, or otherwise 
in effect. On this account it is, that all the 
modern Episcopal Churches have had their 



The Office, Presiding Eldership. 155 

presiding or ruling elders, under the names 
of grand vicars, archdeacons, rural deans, 
etc. The Moravians have Presiding Elders, 
who are invested with very considerable au- 
thority, though, we believe, they are sim- 
ply termed Elders. And we beg leave to re- 
peat that, we are confident we could, if need 
were, show that all Episcopal Churches, an- 
cient and modern, of any great extent, have 
had an order or set of ministers correspond- 
ing, more or less to our presiding or ruling 
elders, all of whom were, more or less, in- 
vested with the superintendence of other 
ministers, . * * * * * Mr. Wesley in- 
forms us in his works, that the whole plan 
of Methodism was introduced, step by step, 
by the interference and opening of divine 
Providence. This was the case in the pres- 
ent instance. When Mr. Wesley drew up a 
plan of government for our Church in 
America, he desired that no more Elders 
be ordained in the first instance than were 
absolutely necessary, and that the work on 
the continent should be divided between 
them, in respect to the duties of their office. 
The General Conference accordingly elected 
twelve Elders for the above purposes. 



156 The History of Episcopacy 

Bishop Asbury and the district (Annual) 
Conference afterwards found that this order 
of men was so necessary that they agreed 
to enlarge the number, and give them the 
name by which they are at present called, 
(of which, however, there is no trace in the 
minutes: the Bishop probably acted, and the 
Conference acquiesced,) and which is per- 
fectly Scriptural though not the word used 
in our translation: and this proceeding after- 
wards received the approbation of Mr. 
Wesley. In 1792 the General Conference 
equally conscious of the necessity of having 
such an office among us, not only confirmed 
everything that Bishop Asbury and the Dis- 
trict Conferences had done, but also drew 
up or agreed to the present section for the 
explanation of the nature and duties of the 
office. The Conference clearly saw that the 
Bishop wanted assistants; that it was impos- 
sible for one or two Bishops so to superintend 
the vast work on the continent as to keep 
everything in order in the intervals of the 
Conference, without other official men to act 
under them and assist them. ' ' (Notes on the 
Discipline 1796.) 

Thus the office of the Presiding Eldership 



The Office, Presiding Eldership. 157 

like that of the Bishopric, grew into exist- 
ence as a creature of necessity, or to use 
the words of Bishop Turner, "-It was de- 
veloped out of necessity. ' ' 

This office which has been eloquently called 
"the right arm of our episcopacy," has 
been nominally recognized in the African 
Methodist Episcopal Book of Discipline 
from the beginning. But was never made 
operative until 1868, at which time the Gen- 
eral Conference sitting in Washington, D. C. , 
instituted or made effective the Presiding 
Elder's office in such Annual Conferences as 
chose to adopt it. It was then and there 
made optionally operative. 

The General Conference sitting at Indian- 
apolis in 1888, observing the benefits of the 
system, wherein active operation, and seeing 
the need of a more uniform government, en- 
acted that the law of 1868 be repealed and 
that the Presiding Elder system be made 
operative throughout the general Church. 
(General Conference Minutes 1888, p. 
106.) Since this time it has steadily grown 
in favor with the Church, until today it is 
regarded an indispensable factor in our min- 
istry. 



158 Th e His tory of Epis cop a cj\ 

The office of the 
Presiding E}lder- 

THE RELATION OF PRESID- D t.' • „ ^Al^-^ 

ixg elders to the snip is an adjunct 

EPISCOPACY. i ,1 ttv • 

to the J^piscopacy. 

It is, as Stevens has 
said, "The left arm of the churches' discip- 
linary administration. ' ' 

In 1786 two years after the creation of the 
office of the Presiding Elder in addi- 
tion to the duties enjoined upon said official, 
viz. : 

(1) i 'To administer the sacraments of bap- 
tism, and the Lord's Supper and perform all 
the other rites prescribed by our Liturgy 
Discipline 1785. ' f The following duties were 
added: 

(2) ' ' To exercise within his own district, 
during the absence of the Superintendents, 
all the powers vested in them for the govern- 
ment of the Church, provided that he never 
act contrary to an express order of the Su- 
perintendents. ' ' (IDmory's History of the 
Discipline, p. 125.) 

Bishop McKindree says, "The General 
Superintendents are invested with full pow- 
er to superintend the work at large* * * * 
But the work extended so rapidly that in a 



The Office, Presiding Eldership, 159 

few years it became impossible for the Bish- 
op to superintend it in person; therefore, 
Presiding Elders were introduced, as assist- 
ant superintendents; and as the Bishops 
were the only responsible persons for the 
administration, they were to choose the Pre- 
siding Elders, who were authorized to su- 
perintend the work in the absence of the 
Bishops; therefore, the office of a Presiding 
Elder is not separate and distinct from that 
of a general Superintendent, but is insepar- 
ably connected with a part of it, and includ- 
ed in it. They are deputized by the Bish- 
ops who bear the whole responsibility of the 
administration, as their assistants in the 
Superintendency. ' ' 

This bit of historic legislation together, 
with Bishop McKindree's clear and accepted 
statement on the origin of Presiding Elders, 
gives us a clear idea as to the relation Pre- 
siding Elders sustain to the Episcopacy in 
the beginning. 

They were the deputies of the Bishops, 
acting with delegated Episcopal Authority. 
And, "In the absence of the Bishops," ex- 
ercising "all the powers vested in them 



160 The History of Episcopacy. 

(Bishops) for the government of the Church, ' ' 
Ordination excepted. 

This Sub-episcopal relation of Presiding 
Elders to the Episcopacy ordained in the or- 
ganic law of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
in the beginning, has been and is, the rela- 
tion which Presiding Elders sustain to the 
Episcopacy in all branches of Episcopal 
Methodism. 

They are as Bishop Turner says, "High 
Ministerial functionaries, charged with 
weighty responsibilities, * * * Assistant 
Bishops, or Superintendents, Sub-episco- 
pates." (Methodist Polity, p. 134.) 

The relation however which Presiding El- 
ders sustain to the Episcopacy or General 
Superintendency of African Methodism, is 
more clearly defined in the following enumer- 
ation of duties and restrictions set forth in 
the A. M. E. Book of Discipline. To wit: 

(1) To take charge of all the Elders, 
Deacons, Preachers, itinerant and local, and 
the Exhorters in his district. 

(2) To travel at large in his district, preside 
in the District Conference, and all the Quar- 
terly Conferences, assist pastors at Quarterly 
Meetings, see that the business of the Con- 



The Office, Presiding Eldership. 161 

f erence is in strict accord with the Discipline, 
and preach at least once at each charge 
quarterly. 

(3) To keep a faithful record of the 
Quarterly Conference minutes, and to give 
proper directions to all the affairs of the 
Church. 

(4) To give decisions on all questions 
of law in the District Conference, and the 
Quarterly Conferences, subject to an appeal 
to the Annual Conference, the application of 
the law in all cases to be left to the District 
Conference and the Quarterly Conference. 

(5) To change or remove a preacher in 
the interval of Annual Conference, after 
strict investigation, where the interest of 
a Church demands it, or when a majority 
of the membership is dissatisfied and the Of- 
ficial Board, in a written petition, requests 
him to do so; provided he assign said preach- 
er to another field of labor. He may call a 
committee to investigate or try a case of a 
pastor under charges. 

(6) To employ a preacher who has been 
rejected by an Annual Conference because of 
failure to pass examination ; provided the An- 
nual Conference grant permission and the 



i62 The History of Episcopacy. 

preacher is a man of good moral character; 
but he shall not employ nor allow to exercise 
in any- Church of his district any preacher 
under suspension or expulsion, in our own, 
or other Churches. 

(7) To thoroughly acquaint himself with 
the efficiency and acceptability of the pas- 
tors in his district, and endeavor to have 
satisfactory appointments for all the people. 

(8) To see that all moneys collected on 
Connectional Sabbath — Endowment, Easter, 
and Children's Day are forwarded to the of- 
fices to which they are due, promptly, and 
shall demand, no part of the collections on 
those days, as payment of assessment for 
support. 

(9) To cease not to travel without the 
consent of the Annual Conference, or the 
Bishop. 

(10) To preside over the District Confer- 
ence in the absence of the Bishop. 

Thus it will be seen that no class of Min- 
isters in the Methodist Economy fill a more 
important position than Presiding Elders. 

This office is representative. They repre- 
sent the Bishop in all of their official acts and 
utterances. 



The Office, Presiding Eldership. 163 

Objections to this office are often raised 
both among the ministry and laity of our 
Church. But these objections usually come 
either from those who have not examined in- 
to the important relations thereof to the 
whole Economy of the Church and its neces- 
sitated place in an Episcopal system, or from 
those who are prejudiced against an Epis- 
copal form of government. 

In view therefore, it may not be out of place 
to discuss briefly some of the benefits of the 
system 

One of the peculiar fea- 
efficient itotIAct. tures of Methodism is the 
Itinerancy of her ministry. 
Annually, there is a readjustment of all her 
preaching forces. Once in every twelve 
months, the Bishop makes out his appoint- 
meats, and shifts the ministers from one 
field of labor to another. 

Every appointment must be made with a 
thorough knowledge of the qualifications of 
the preacher appointed, and the demands of 
the work to which he is appointed. This 
knowledged can only be had through the 
Presiding Elder, and to him the Bishop looks 
for" Recommendations" He is the eyes 



164 The History of Episcopacy. 

and ears of the Bishop, and the mouth- 
piece of the people. 

Having been in constant touch with both 
preachers and people, and having acquainted 
himself thoroughly with the conditions, 
wants and requirements of the churches, as 
well as the peculiar talents and adaptations 
of the preachers, he is admirably well, pre- 
pared to council the Bishop in the matter of 
appointments. In fact without the office of 
the Presiding Eldership, our present efficient 
Itinerant system could not be maintained. 
The vastness of the field, together with the 
multiplicity of general interest to be looked 
after, renders it a physical impossibility for 
the Bishop to acquaint himself with the 
wants, needs and conditions of the people, 
as well as the abilities and peculiar adapta- 
tions of the preachers — knowledge, absolute- 
ly essential to a judicious disposition of the 
ministerial forces under him. Hence, the 
advice of the Presiding Dlder is absolutely 
essential to the Bishop in making out his 
annual appointments, and in making opera- 
tive the Itinerancy, the soldiery of our 
Methodism. 



The Office, Presiding Eldership. 165 

Through the Presiding Dlder a constant 
and thorough oversight is kept over all the 
work. As a part of the executive machinery 
of the Church, his first official duty is to ' 'trav- 
el at large in his district. ' ' He is the ' 'as- 
sistant" of the Bishop, appointed to "over- 
see the spiritual and temporal business of 
the societies in his district, ' ' in the absence 
of the Bishop. Hence, four times a year, 
he visits each point in his district, convenes 
the Quarterly Conference and examines into 
the spiritual and temporal condition of the 
work. A minute inquiry is made in refer- 
ence to every department of the Church, and 
every element of church efficiency. Inquir- 
ies are made in reference to the government 
of the Church during the Quarter; as to lo- 
cal Preachers, Dxhorters, and their effi- 
ciency; as to increase or decrease in member- 
ship; as to baptisms, the condition of the 
Sunday school; the support of the pastor; 
and the finances of the Trustee as they effect 
current expenses, or property interest; as to 
the general claims of the Church, and be- 
nevolent enterprises; also as to the circula- 
tion of the Church periodicals among the 
people. 



1 66 The History of JSpiscopacjr. 

The information gained from these sever- 
al inquiries are all supplemented by careful- 
ly written statements from the respective 
boards and departments of the Church, 
from which the Presiding Elder is enabled 
to gain a fair knowledge of the spiritual and 
temporal condition of the Society, or Socie- 
ties under his immediate charge. In addi- 
tion to this, the moral, religious and official 
character of the official members are exam- 
ined; the wayward and the rebellious re- 
proved or dismissed, the slothful urged to 
duty, and the faithful ones encouraged. 

Also, all judicial matters, whether pre- 
sented by appellant members or by the offi- 
ciary of the Church, are settled by the Pre- 
siding Elder, and the Quarterly Conference 
at these stated quarterly visits. And thus 
the peace and equilibrium of the Church, 
which might be threatened by maladminis- 
tration, maintained. This Sub-episcopal su- 
pervision — this quarterly inspection of every 
society in the district is a great benefit both 
to the local church and also to the executive 
head. 

As on the one hand, it stimulates and 
arouses the Church to action, puts things in 



The Office, Presiding Eldership. 167 

order and inspires the whole church commu- 
nity to greater Christian endeavors; while on 
the other hand, it acquaints the Presiding 
Elder with the affairs of the Church so 
thoroughly, as well as the peculiar fitness of 
the preacher, as to enable him to make a cor- 
rect report and recommendation, touching 
any point in his district, when called into 
episcopal council. Thus through the Pre- 
siding Elder system, the Bishop is kept in 
touch with all of the work, and the Episco- 
pacy or General Superintendency maintained. 

In fine, with Mr. Stevens, we would say, 
44 We have no hesitancy in saying that no 
function of the system — not excepting the 
Episcopacy itself — is capable of greater use- 
fulness, or could be sacrificed with less peril. 
The Episcopacy could not possibly proceed 
without it; but the Presiding Eldership 
might possibly operate the system without 
the Episcopacy, though with clumsy ineffi- 
ciency — the Episcopacy exerts great and 
salutary influence through the Church by its 
Itinerant preaching and counsels; but the 
influence of the Presiding Eldership is on a 
scale more effective, because more system- 
atic. ' ' (Church Polity, p. 186. ) 



CHAPTER XL 

THE ONLY TRUE SUCCESSION. 

From a faithful and thorough study of 
the sacred Scriptures, and especially the 
prelatic texts, upon which Romanist base 
the primacy of Peter; as well as the history 
of the pontificate, with its false claims of 
sacerdotal power, it seems explicitly clear 
that there is not now, nor ever has been such 
a thing in the Christian ministry as Apos- 
tolic Succession. 

But there is a succession in the Christian 
Ministry, nevertheless — a true succession — 
a succession, which rests not upon the trans- 
mission of some mysterious virtue, grace 
and authority from Peter, but from Christ 
himself, and those who are its possessors, are 
all such as receive the Divine Call. 

A Divine Call from on 
ditinecall. high is the first funda- 

mental prerequisite to 
the Gospel minister. From the earliest 

period in the history of the human race, 
(168) 



The Only True Succession. 169 

as found in the Bible, God has himself 
made choice of those who should minister at 
his altar, and preach the Gospel of his grace 
to the world. 

This is first seen in the lives of Abel, 
Noah, Melchisedec, and Abraham. But the 
history of God's plan to choose and call 
those who were to administer unto him, be- 
gins more explicitly with the departure of 
the children of Israel from E)gypt. 

On the eve of their departure, God chose 
the first male born of every family to minis- 
ter before him these, were to be his priests. 
Witness his word to Moses, "And the Lord 
spake unto Moses, saying, Sanctify unto me 
all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the 
womb among the children of Israel, both of 
man and of beast : it is mine. ' ' (iDx. 13 : 1, 2. ) 
This plan of choosing the firstborn to the 
service of God obtained in Israel until they 
were settled in the land of Canaan, when he 
then made choice of a certain tribe — that of 
Levi — to perform the service of his house, 
"And I, behold, I have taken the Levites 
from among the children of Israel instead of 
all the firstborn that openeth the matrix 
among the children of Israel: Therefore the 



1 70 Th e His torjr of Episcopacy. 

Levites shall be mine; Because all the 
firstborn are mine." (Num. 3: 12, 13.) Fol- 
lowing* this, viz. : that of a certain family of 
this tribe — that of Aaron — to perform the 
duties of the priesthood, witness, Ex. 28: 1. 
44 And take thou unto thee Aaron thy broth- 
er, and his sons with him, from among 
the children of Israel, that he may minister 
unto me in the priest's office, even Aaron, 
Nadab and Abihu, Bleazar and Ithamar, 
Aaron's sons." But for some reason, He 
still retained his claim on the firstborn, re- 
quiring the parents to buy off this obligation 
by making a certain offering to him soon 
after the birth of their firstborn, which of- 
fering was to go to the maintenance of the 
priest he had chosen in their stead. Wit- 
ness, (Num. 3: SO, 51.) "Of the firstborn of 
the children of Israel took he the money; a 
thousand three hundred and three score and 
five shekels, after the shekel of the sanc- 
tuary: And Moses gave the money of them 
that were redeemed unto Aaron and to his 
sons, according to the word of the Lord, as 
the Lord commanded Moses. ' ' But even in 
this plan we see, as in the former, that God 
did not surrender his right to choose those 



The Only True Succession. 171 

who should preach his Gospel. Thus 
throughout the Jewish economy, God chose 
his own priesthood. Not only have we the 
histor} r of this fact in the Old Testament that 
God chose Aaron, but in the New Testa- 
ment we are told, "No man taketh this hon- 
our unto himself, but he that is called of 
God, as was Aaron." (Heb. 5: 4.) ID very in- 
timation in the New Testament, with refer- 
ence to the call and appointment to the min- 
istry, is to the effect that Christ holds sole 
control of the whole matter. 

They are His ambassadors, and he alone 
has the right to select them. Henkle in 
"Analysis of Principles of Church Govern- 
ment' } says, "an Ambassador can not create 
an Ambassador, this being the work of the 
supreme power. He may judge of qualifi- 
cations, acknowledge claims to genuineness, 
and endorse them to others; but the author- 
ity to be really valid must come from him 
alone, whether king or president, who may 
enjoy the supreme authority. M 

Thus Christ instituted the ministry and 
decreed its perpetuity in a succession of 
faithful men of Apostolic zeal and purity; 
but while he left to them the manage- 



172 Th e His tory of Episcopacy. 

ment of such as respect economic details, he 
held distinctly in his own hands this great 
matter of succession, by reserving the sole 
power of creating his own ambassadors to 
the end of the line. God has not made 
himself dependent upon erring mortals for a 
valid succession of his ministers of grace, 
but from Abel to Aaron; from Aaron to 
Paul; and from Paul to the last anointed of 
grace to preach, he has reserved the sole 
and exclusive right to himself, to call and 
send those who are to administer before him 
in holy things. 

Thus it is clear that no priestly preten- 
sions; no so-called transmissions of ministeri- 
al orders; no feigned bestowment of plenary 
power by Pontifical hands, can in any sense 
make a true minister of Christ. 

Something more than human authority — 
something without which all human authori- 
ty, gifts and graces are nothing — must be 
had before one can be said to be a God-call- 
ed and God-sent minister. He who stands 
in Christ's stead must be "An Apostle, not 
of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, 
and God the Father. " (Gal. 1:1.) 



The Only True Succession. 173 

The successors of the 

apostles are such as bear 

TH ^^^«^ the indicia of holiness- 

SUCCESSION. ni • /• v • 

Christianity is pre-emi- 
nently a holy religion, 
and God has ordained, 
that those who administer before him must 
be holy. On the institution of the priesthood, 
God ordained that they should be sanctified. 

A holy priesthood. "They shall be holy 
unto their God, and not profane the name 
of their God: for the offerings of the Lord 
made by fire, and the bread of their God, 
they do offer: therefore they shall be holy. " 
(Lev. 21:6.) Nearly a thousand years later 
mindful of the divine declaration that the 
sons of Levi must be holy, Isaiah on the re- 
turn of Israel from bondage, in an admoni- 
tion poetically sublime, sang "Be ye clean, 
that bear the vessels of the Lord. ' ' (Isa. 
52:11.) 

And Paul in putting forth the qualifications 
of a Gospel minister said, ' ' For a bishop 
(Elder) must be blameless." (Tit. 1:7.) 
The signet on the forefront of the priest's 
Mirte bearing the inscription, ' ' Holiness unto 
the Lord, ' : was not a human device, but a 



174 Th e His torjr of Epis cop a cy. 

divine requirement. It was required of God 
to be worn by the priest as an indicative of 
his holy life and of his high and holy calling. 
Holiness of life was the standard God set 
up in the beginning for his anointed, and 
that standard he has maintained through 
all the sweep of ages. 

And yet there are those who have the 
audacity to affirm that the valid exercise of 
ministerial functions are only to be found 
with those who wear the livery of Rome. 
What presumption ! How preposterous ! ! 
God's ministers are called, and sanctified, 
and only such are true succesors of the 
apostles. No amount of ecclesiastical pre- 
tension or theological jugglery, can in any 
sense prepare a man to preach the Gospel 
whose heart has not been cleansed from all 
iniquity, and whose life has not been sancti- 
fied to his service. In the language of 
Bishop Gaines, " There are cords in the 
harp of religion he can never strike unless 
his hand has felt the bleeding wounds of the 
crucified; there are notes in the song of the 
Lamb he can never sing unless his lips have 
been touched with the live coal from the 
alter of redeeming love." (Call to the Min- 
istry, p. 23.) 



The Only True Succession. 175 

Those who have suc- 

APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE AND „ /J /1 4-U~ „ nAc fU c \^ +t- 

evangelical preaching, ceeaea tne apostles in tne 

ministry are those who 
have continued steadfast in the apostles' doc- 
trine, and preached an evangelical Gospel. 
The preaching of the truth, the faith and 
doctrine as taught by the apostles is and 
ever has been an unerring standard by 
which the truly God-called and God-sent 
minister may be judged. Who are those 
who have kept the fires burning on the Gos- 
pel altar? Who are those who have 
preached a living conscience-awakening sin- 
conquering soul-saving Gospel? Have they 
been Romanists? Were they Successionists? 
Verily, no! They were those who went 
everywhere preaching the Gospel for the 
first four or five hundred years after Christ's 
ascension, before the doctrine of Apostolic 
Succession crept into the Church. After 
them came the Waldenses in the valleys of 
the Alps; the Albigenses; the Lollards in 
England; Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Zvl- 
ingle, Huss, John Knox, John and Charles 
Wesley, Whitfield, Asbury, Coke, Allen, 
Wm. Paul Quinn, and a mighty army of 
evangelical colaborers of whom the world 



1 76 The History of Episcopacy. 

was not worthy. To quote again from Mr. 
Powell : ' ' Whenever Gospel truth has been 
preserved against error, and a Real Reviv- 
al of Apostolic faith and gospel holiness 
has been brought about, God has employed 
men not in this scheme of succession. The 
Gospel would have perished if left to this 
succession, man corrupts everything. He is 
not to be trusted with so precious a treasure 
as Christianity. God keeps his own work 
in his own hands. He and lie alone holds 
the keys to the ministry of his word. 
When a regular ministry is scriptural and 
pious, God greatly blesses it. It is an un- 
speakable blessing to the Church. But 
when ministers forsake God, God forsakes 
them. He then raises up others; he sets his 
own seal to their piety, doctrine, labors, and 
sufferings, by making them abundantly suc- 
cessful in the conversion of sinners and in 
the edification and extension of His Church. 

The residue of the spirit is with him. 
The hearts of all men are in his keeping; He 
can raise up and qualify instruments for his 
work from any quarter. The fishermen of 
Galilee — the poor men of Lyons — the Hu- 
guernots in Prance— the Lollards in England 



The Only True Succession. 177 

— Luther the monk in Germany — the Wes- 
leys at Oxford — these have been God's 
instruments ! Well ! Let all human schemes 
perish in their turn when wrongly used to 
prevent the progress of the Gospel truth 
and holiness ! The Lord liveth ! blessed be 
his holy name! Blessed be his name for his 
servants, for his martyrs, his confessors, his 
holy ministers of every name; above all, 
blessed be his name, for the unspeakable gift 
of his holy truth transmitted by the sacred 
Scriptuies, and a holy ministry from gen- 
eration to generation! May it more than 
ever prevail ! And may the earth be filled 
with his glory! Amen! Amen! (Apostolic 
Succession, p. 285.) 

In conclusion to the sons 
THE SI^ C i E F/iSf TBE of Levi, who minister at 
our holy altars — divinely 
called to preach his word, — properly quali- 
fied, duly constituted, and regularly appoint- 
ed; preaching the doctrines the apostles 
preached, filled with their zeal, and emula- 
ting their virtues, our's is a glorious unim- 
peachable, imperishable, unbroken, evan- 
gelical, and therefore Apostolical Succession 

of truth and grace, through the royal line of 
12 



178 The History of Episcopacjr. 

Payne, Waymen, Campbell, Quinn, Allen, 
Simpson, McKendree, Asbury, Coke, Whit- 
field, and the Wesleys, the Reformers and 
Church Fathers, Paul and Peter, James and 
John, on and on, back and up to our own 
Dternal Melchisedec, "Having neither be- 
ginning of days nor end of life. ' ' 

As we close these lines, the spirit of the 
fathers rests upon us. Our soul is on fire. 
The spirit has lifted us from the low plains 
of dull prose to the mountain heights of 
poetry, with Doddridge we stand, and with 
him we sing: 

"The Savior, when to heaven he rose, 
In splendid triumph o'er his foes, 
Scattered his gifts on men below; 
And still his royal bounties flow. 
Hence sprang the apostles' honored name, 
Sacred beyond heroic fame; 
In humbler forms, before our eyes, 
Pastors and teachers hence arise. 
From Christ they all their gifts derive, 
And, fed by Christ, their graces live; 
While guarded by his Mighty hand, 
'Midst all the rage of hell they stand. 
So shall the bright succession run 
Through all the courses of the sun: 
While unborn Churches, by their care, 
Shall rise and flourish, large and fair." 



©fc<? END. 



_j 

17 82 




^ 




a? -*> 







7^ . ' •«- "*> V^ *»' 









> 












«*°«* 










o » o 










\/ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
• Treatment Date: August 2005 

c PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



o>^ 













*°^, 




«* *y 



4^ «' 




+*0« 




• v^ .-jsm*. ♦♦-♦♦ .-ate \^* .•* 












k X-^&X X^:>. ./.«-> 












# V^V V-^V V^'V 
.-isMfc w /jgte- V>* .vaMafc %„** .• 



fe- 0°\^^°o A'^fe.% G°*.C^% 




v°v\ 




a 4°* - 



o . ** rrT'* ,0° V % • " * * x-?.* 




a %.•.<" .-isiSfei-. ^ .-ate- \-/ .-j 











<~>^n 




_ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 673 531 9 




B i| Biii|| 



gag mSS 



'■■ ... ; '. 



